PDA

View Full Version : Dialogue With Darwinists



patriot45
02-03-2009, 09:00 AM
This is always fun! :D Happy anniversary, Wilbur!


Come and get it (http://townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2009/02/03/dialogue_with_darwinists)



Darwinists are celebrating this month the 150th anniversary of the publication of their hero's breakthrough book, On the Origin of Species. Christians who respond with ridicule of Darwin get nowhere—but understanding a few terms of the debate can help to start a dialogue.

(1) Let's start with the distinction between types of evolution. Back in 1859 everyone knew that changes could occur within a species; that's how we breed dogs. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection, and he postulated that one species could change into another species. (To put it biblically, since God talks about "kinds" of creatures, one kind could become another kind.)

It's important to know the difference between change within kinds (microevolution) and change from one kind to another (macroevolution). Darwinists who argue for macroevolution often give microevolution examples to "prove" changes. The famous "proof" of moths changing colors as pollution darkened trees was actually a fake, but it could have happened—and that would prove nothing about Darwinism.

Bottom line: Critics of Darwin should not be anti-evolution. Microevolution clearly happens; we should always specify macroevolution.

(2) Let's emphasize how complicated DNA is: In the words of Bill Gates, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." So how did DNA come into being? In 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick discovered that DNA stores information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

The chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. In other words, DNA functions like a software program—and software comes from programmers who intelligently design it. Bottom line: The makeup of the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA.

(3) What kind of a role? The Bible clearly says that God created and sustains the universe. Science has now shown that God's creation is more marvelous than Darwin suspected. With no knowledge of the world of nanotechnology within living cells, Darwinians until recent decades saw living cells as somewhat like Lego blocks. Now we know that cells have complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines, rotors, stators, O-rings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Here's what is key: Each little engine depends on the coordinated function of many protein parts and doesn't work unless all the parts are present. Could all those innovations arise sequentially, or would they all have to happen at once? That's the "irreducible complexity" biochemist Michael Behe wrote of in Darwin's Black Box.

jinxmchue
02-03-2009, 11:38 AM
There is no "dialogue with Darwinists" because they shutdown and - dare I say it? - expel any and all dissenting opinions. Evolution is, to them, "settled science," which is a laughable concept. (Incidentally, "global warming" is also "settled science.") Everything confirms evolution and nothing can ever contradict it (thus making it bad science). If something comes along that seems to contradict it, they fit the evidence to match the theory. They will not, under ANY circumstances, ever say, "We might be wrong." They dogmatically cling to their faith in the theory.

wilbur
02-03-2009, 12:08 PM
Baiting me seems to be your new favorite hobby, Patriot45! Always happy to indulge.. but your article will have to wait a bit, as I am busy... but I do have time for this quick little response.


There is no "dialogue with Darwinists" because they shutdown and - dare I say it? - expel any and all dissenting opinions. Evolution is, to them, "settled science," which is a laughable concept. (Incidentally, "global warming" is also "settled science.") Everything confirms evolution and nothing can ever contradict it (thus making it bad science). If something comes along that seems to contradict it, they fit the evidence to match the theory. They will not, under ANY circumstances, ever say, "We might be wrong." They dogmatically cling to their faith in the theory.


Ohhhhhh the unbelievable, head-exploding, irony... irony in its most ultimate... pristine... in its most pure. If I had more time, I would write more poetic words about the insurmountable amounts of cognitive dissonance that you just displayed.... but alas, it will have to wait.

patriot45
02-03-2009, 09:43 PM
I don't know how deep I want to get right now. But There is a theory out there that there was only maybe 50 or less types of dinos. You know like there is 100s of breeds of dogs but they are still dogs. I like that Carbon dating, radiometric dating,and potassium-argon dating seem to contadict themselves.

patriot45
02-03-2009, 09:48 PM
Hey! I found something that looks at both sides!



How Old is the Earth?





Man seems to possess an untiring preoccupation regarding the globe on which he resides. Some of this interest is beneficial to man, enhancing his lifestyle. However, some of the preoccupation is indicative of arrogance on man's part. Those who are obsessed with teaching that the earth, man, and every living thing on earth naturally began and through natural selection evolved are engaging in the zenith of gall (Gen. 1; 2). There is particular interest today relative to the age of the earth. Some geophysicists tell us the earth is 4.7 billions years old. Some theologians say the earth is only 6, 000 years old. Beloved, the simple answer regarding the age of the earth is, no man knows the exact age.

The earth is 6,000 years old position. The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy. It must be remembered that Genesis presents the earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).

The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the "ore method," "meteorite method," and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.

There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old. Beloved, one thing we do know is life begets life and creation implies a Creator: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1: 1). In all honesty, there are matters scientists and theologians do not definitively know as to the age of the earth. True science and the Bible, though, do not conflict.

MrsSmith
02-03-2009, 10:24 PM
Just on the subject of dogs...(where "evolution" was most certainly "intelligent design)

http://www.pet-portraitartist.com/all-about-dogs/dogbreeds/breed-pics/dog-breeds.jpg



You see in this image a tiny dog with a round little head, next to a massive Great Dane. If the skeletons of these dogs were dug up 1000 years from now, no biologist or evolutionist would ever correctly surmise that both were adult members of the same species, and capable of interbreeding. :D

wilbur
02-03-2009, 11:33 PM
Just on the subject of dogs...(where "evolution" was most certainly "intelligent design)

http://www.pet-portraitartist.com/all-about-dogs/dogbreeds/breed-pics/dog-breeds.jpg

You see in this image a tiny dog with a round little head, next to a massive Great Dane. If the skeletons of these dogs were dug up 1000 years from now, no biologist or evolutionist would ever correctly surmise that both were adult members of the same species, and capable of interbreeding. :D

They absolutely are not capable of interbreeding. The size barrier is just as real as any other barrier that prevents fertilization. So in a way, they can be thought of separate species, even though we don't actually classify them that way, depending on how youre using the term. Sometimes all members of a species are capable of interbreeding, other times they are not. Many in the canidae family can interbreed and they are different species. Horses can mate with donkeys and create a mule, and they are different species. Great dane's and chihuahuas cannot interbreed and are technically the same species..... unless interfered with by humans... or they get extremely creative....

The rigidity that the term species makes us envision isn't always true to life.. things get blurry...

jinxmchue
02-03-2009, 11:40 PM
Ohhhhhh the unbelievable, head-exploding, irony... irony in its most ultimate... pristine... in its most pure. If I had more time, I would write more poetic words about the insurmountable amounts of cognitive dissonance that you just displayed.... but alas, it will have to wait.

Oh, PLEASE elaborate, wilbur, so I can prove your retarded assumptions about be wrong and laugh in your sorry face. Again.

jinxmchue
02-03-2009, 11:59 PM
You can't possibly know how silly it looks for a creationist to make this statement.

Oh, do tell. Because all creationists are the same, right? We all mindlessly believe the same exact things, right? Not like evolutionists, right? Yeah, evolutionists are all open-minded and don't all believe the same things. Nope.


Because if you knew, you never would have said it.

HAHAHA!!! Now THAT'S ironic. If you knew anything about me, you'd have never made this post.


Let's make a (partial) list of things that have 'come along to contradict' young-earth creationism and then we can talk about who refuses to say 'might be wrong' under any circumstances.

What about those creationists who don't believe in a young earth?

Oops.

Sorry. Thanks for playing, though.


- Carbon dating
- Continental drift
- Natural selection
- Speciation
- Dinosaurs
- Hominid fossils
- The scientific method
- Shared DNA
- Sexual reproduction
- Vestigial structures
- Transitional fossils

lol! None of these things - even if they were all true or relevant, which they are not - contradict any type of creationism.


That's just off the top of my head - excuse the incomplete-ness.

And the idiocy, too, apparently.

wilbur
02-04-2009, 12:01 AM
Oh, PLEASE elaborate, wilbur, so I can prove your retarded assumptions about be wrong and laugh in your sorry face. Again.

I was going to, but Troll did it nicely already.

wilbur
02-04-2009, 12:02 AM
Oh, do tell. Because all creationists are the same, right? We all mindlessly believe the same exact things, right? Not like evolutionists, right? Yeah, evolutionists are all open-minded and don't all believe the same things. Nope.



HAHAHA!!! Now THAT'S ironic. If you knew anything about me, you'd have never made this post.



What about those creationists who don't believe in a young earth?

Oops.

Sorry. Thanks for playing, though.



lol! None of these things - even if they were all true or relevant, which they are not - contradict any type of creationism.


Are you no longer a young earth creationist?

wilbur
02-04-2009, 12:34 AM
Oh, do tell. Because all creationists are the same, right? We all mindlessly believe the same exact things, right? Not like evolutionists, right? Yeah, evolutionists are all open-minded and don't all believe the same things. Nope.


Well, actually, lets look at your original statement:



If something comes along that seems to contradict it, they fit the evidence to match the theory. They will not, under ANY circumstances, ever say, "We might be wrong." They dogmatically cling to their faith in the theory.


So what evidence is there that would ever make you re-think YEC? If you really stick to your guns there is absolutely nothing, because you accept the divinity of scripture as axiomatic. You also hold as axiomatic your plain reading doctrine (or whatever hermeneutic standard you use) that tells you to interpret the story of Genesis as a historical narrative. These things are immutable to you.... foundational to your world-view. All knowledge you acquire is interpreted in light of these beliefs (foolish ones though they are).... these beliefs cannot be retooled because of new facts.

Knowing this... lets look again at what you said:



If something comes along that seems to contradict it, they fit the evidence to match the theory. They will not, under ANY circumstances, ever say, "We might be wrong." They dogmatically cling to their faith in the theory.


Your entire epistemology functions by re-interpreting evidence and fact according to an immutable axiom that claims Genesis is an accurate, literal history book. So marinate on that.. and you SHOULD be able to see (though I doubt you will) you simply described yourself with that statement. You re-interpret fact to fit YOUR THEORY! Hence, the mind-crushing irony.

Until you realize your entire world-view is flawed at its core, any "knowledge" you will acquire, will be tainted by your foolish, unreasonable axioms.

On another side-note, evolution has changed drastically over the years since it was first posited by Darwin... The theory changes to fit the facts... which is how science works, by design. Evolution changes in light of new evidence.. your world-view simply reinterprets the evidences, ipso facto. I'm rubber you are glue.

Odysseus
02-04-2009, 12:42 AM
They absolutely are not capable of interbreeding. The size barrier is just as real as any other barrier that prevents fertilization. ...Great dane's and chihuahuas cannot interbreed and are technically the same species..... unless interfered with by humans... or they get extremely creative...

You've obviously never seen a chihuahua on stilts.

The question is not whether a chihuahua can mate with a great dane, it's whether the great dane will notice it. Of course, if the reverse occurs, and it's a male great dane, the chihuahua will never be the same again. In fact, even a pretty good dane will ruin her for other miniatures. :D

wilbur
02-04-2009, 12:44 AM
You've obviously never seen a chihuahua on stilts.

I am intrigued. I would like to see this. Might even pay money.

Odysseus
02-04-2009, 12:50 AM
I am intrigued. I would like to see this. Might even pay money.

There are websites for that, but being an officer and a gentleman, I wouldn't know of such things. BTW, my ultimate crossbreed is a bull terrier-shitzu mix. I don't care what the dog looks like, I just want a bull-shitzu. :D:D

jinxmchue
02-04-2009, 05:27 PM
Are you no longer a young earth creationist?

Didn't realize I was one to begin with. I'll admit I'm sympathetic to YEC, but I've not absolutely decided on it. I believe the 6000-year-old Earth figure is based on erroneous calculations. The Bible doesn't say one way or another exactly how old the Earth is and there's no surefire way to absolutely pin it down from the information therein.


So what evidence is there that would ever make you re-think YEC?

You mean in order for me to become a YECist? Or for me to no longer be one if I were one?


If you really stick to your guns there is absolutely nothing, because you accept the divinity of scripture as axiomatic. You also hold as axiomatic your plain reading doctrine (or whatever hermeneutic standard you use) that tells you to interpret the story of Genesis as a historical narrative. These things are immutable to you.... foundational to your world-view. All knowledge you acquire is interpreted in light of these beliefs (foolish ones though they are).... these beliefs cannot be retooled because of new facts.

Woah. I am truly, truly astounded. Thanks for proving you don't understand Christianity whatsoever. I don't think I've ever seen Christian beliefs so falsely portrayed and maligned. Your ignorance surpasses any other skeptic I've ever encountered, and that's saying a lot! People like PZ Myers and the three nitwits of the Rational Response Squad are really pretty ignorant. You just blew them all away.


Until you realize your entire world-view is flawed at its core, any "knowledge" you will acquire, will be tainted by your foolish, unreasonable axioms.

You just keep running smack dab into irony, don't you? Because any "knowledge" you acquire is NEVER tainted by your "foolish, unreasonable axioms," is it? No, of course not.


On another side-note, evolution has changed drastically over the years since it was first posited by Darwin...

"Drastically?" Hardly. The arguments may be retooled to appear more complex, but they all say the same thing Darwin did.


The theory changes to fit the facts...

It's funny how all the same facts prove every single evolutionists' pet sub-theory, no matter how contradictory said sub-theories are. That is, of course, because the facts are being made to fit the theory, not vice versa.


which is how science works, by design.

Yes, that's how science does work, but it is not how evolutionists (or those who believe in global warming) work.


Evolution changes in light of new evidence..

Not in any significant, meaningful way, no.


your world-view simply reinterprets the evidences, ipso facto.

ROFLMAO!!!! Did you major in Ironic Arguments 101 or something? How many times have evolutionists reinterpreted evidences since Darwin? Countless times! Just recently, the evidence of Neanderthals was reinterpreted to remove them from the direct line of descent of Homo Sapiens. The evidence was made to fit the theory. Maybe in another 150 years, Neanderthals will be placed back into the line again.


I'm rubber you are glue.

Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

jinxmchue
02-04-2009, 05:32 PM
They absolutely are not capable of interbreeding.

Just because they cannot do so without great difficulty does not mean they are "absolutely are not capable of interbreeding." (Emphasis mine.)


The size barrier is just as real as any other barrier that prevents fertilization.

It's not a barrier as much as it is a hindrance. It would be difficult for the world's tallest woman to "breed" with the world's smallest man, but it's not impossible.


So in a way, they can be thought of separate species, even though we don't actually classify them that way, depending on how youre using the term.

And once again the evidence is made to fit the theory. Congratulations for proving me right.


blah blah blah blah blah

Evolutionist nonsense aside, fruit flies and bacteria are still fruit flies and bacteria.

jinxmchue
02-04-2009, 05:44 PM
It's very interesting how with horse evolution, the alleged ancestors' rib count goes from 18 pairs to 15 pairs, jumps to 19 pairs(!) and then comes back down to 18 pairs in modern horses - all without any sort of indication of transition. It's as if the ribs are magically appearing, disappearing and reappearing. It puts David Copperfield to shame.

MrsSmith
02-04-2009, 06:14 PM
They absolutely are not capable of interbreeding. The size barrier is just as real as any other barrier that prevents fertilization. So in a way, they can be thought of separate species, even though we don't actually classify them that way, depending on how youre using the term. Sometimes all members of a species are capable of interbreeding, other times they are not. Many in the canidae family can interbreed and they are different species. Horses can mate with donkeys and create a mule, and they are different species. Great dane's and chihuahuas cannot interbreed and are technically the same species..... unless interfered with by humans... or they get extremely creative....

The rigidity that the term species makes us envision isn't always true to life.. things get blurry...

They can interbreed...having worked with dogs for years and years, I can guarantee that crosses like this happen. Yet no biologist or evolutionist digging up those skeletons would ever put them in the same species. They would consider the Dane one species, the Chihuahua a second...and their offspring a third.

They would also completely miss the simple fact that the breeds were intelligently designed.

Since they would so totally fail on today's animals, I see no reason to buy into the delusion that they've guessed right on the extinct ones.

wilbur
02-04-2009, 06:15 PM
Didn't realize I was one to begin with. I'll admit I'm sympathetic to YEC, but I've not absolutely decided on it. I believe the 6000-year-old Earth figure is based on erroneous calculations. The Bible doesn't say one way or another exactly how old the Earth is and there's no surefire way to absolutely pin it down from the information therein.


You believe in the literal, historical interpretation of Genesis then, yes?



Woah. I am truly, truly astounded. Thanks for proving you don't understand Christianity whatsoever. I don't think I've ever seen Christian beliefs so falsely portrayed and maligned. Your ignorance surpasses any other skeptic I've ever encountered, and that's saying a lot! People like PZ Myers and the three nitwits of the Rational Response Squad are really pretty ignorant. You just blew them all away.


Let's consult the Answers In Genesis statement of faith, shall we?



1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

In other words, NO EVIDENCE CAN CHANGE THIS.

4. The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

In other words, NO EVIDENCE CAN CHANGE THIS.

5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

In other words, NO EVIDENCE CAN CHANGE THIS.

6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.


There you have it. Real Christians confirming exactly what I said. If you at all subscribe the literalist viewpoint, you probably share of these positions.



You just keep running smack dab into irony, don't you? Because any "knowledge" you acquire is NEVER tainted by your "foolish, unreasonable axioms," is it? No, of course not.


Scientific axioms are reasonable... axioms proclaiming the absolute supremacy of creation myths are not.



ROFLMAO!!!! Did you major in Ironic Arguments 101 or something? How many times have evolutionists reinterpreted evidences since Darwin? Countless times! Just recently, the evidence of Neanderthals was reinterpreted to remove them from the direct line of descent of Homo Sapiens. The evidence was made to fit the theory. Maybe in another 150 years, Neanderthals will be placed back into the line again.


How exactly is that changing the evidence to 'fit the theory'? You are implying that evidence in this case is fudged, or massaged so that 'it fits the theory'. Please explain.

While we wait for you to realize your mistake, I'll go ahead and explain what actually happened.... Once scientists successfully sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthals (ie, the evidence), it was discovered that their placement in the phylogenetic tree (ie, the theory) was not appropriate. So they were reclassified. That is an example of modifying a theory in light of new fact.

Try again!

hampshirebrit
02-04-2009, 06:16 PM
You've obviously never seen a chihuahua on stilts.

The question is not whether a chihuahua can mate with a great dane, it's whether the great dane will notice it. Of course, if the reverse occurs, and it's a male great dane, the chihuahua will never be the same again. In fact, even a pretty good dane will ruin her for other miniatures. :D

The offspring would be a Great WaWa, I presume.

wilbur
02-04-2009, 06:25 PM
They can interbreed...having worked with dogs for years and years, I can guarantee that crosses like this happen. Yet no biologist or evolutionist digging up those skeletons would ever put them in the same species. They would consider the Dane one species, the Chihuahua a second...and their offspring a third.


I'm sorry, what exactly qualifies you to speak for what a palaeontologist would or would not do in your hypothetical situation?

There is simply no reason at all to believe this. You are simply pulling crap out of your a** here and acting like it means something.



They would also completely miss the simple fact that the breeds were intelligently designed.

Since they would so totally fail on today's animals, I see no reason to buy into the delusion that they've guessed right on the extinct ones.

There's no reason to think they would "fail".

Odysseus
02-04-2009, 07:51 PM
The offspring would be a Great WaWa, I presume.

That's better than a chidane.

asdf2231
02-04-2009, 09:49 PM
Just because they cannot do so without great difficulty does not mean they are "absolutely are not capable of interbreeding." (Emphasis mine.)

It's not a barrier as much as it is a hindrance. It would be difficult for the world's tallest woman to "breed" with the world's smallest man, but it's not impossible.



http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/shortbus/minime.png

MrsSmith
02-04-2009, 10:07 PM
I'm sorry, what exactly qualifies you to speak for what a palaeontologist would or would not do in your hypothetical situation?

There is simply no reason at all to believe this. You are simply pulling crap out of your a** here and acting like it means something.



There's no reason to think they would "fail".

Right... :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
02-04-2009, 10:09 PM
Are you saying God is making mistakes? I mean if God was adding and subtracting horse ribs over the years, He must have had a reason, right? Why not just 'create' them perfectly the first time and save work down the road?



:D:D:D The evolution of the horse has been disproven. Horses were created perfectly...as were the creatures considered their "ancestors."

wilbur
02-05-2009, 02:29 AM
:D:D:D The evolution of the horse has been disproven. Horses were created perfectly...as were the creatures considered their "ancestors."

My sister is a large animal vet... I don't think she would agree horses were created perfectly.

FlaGator
02-05-2009, 07:42 AM
It's very interesting how with horse evolution, the alleged ancestors' rib count goes from 18 pairs to 15 pairs, jumps to 19 pairs(!) and then comes back down to 18 pairs in modern horses - all without any sort of indication of transition. It's as if the ribs are magically appearing, disappearing and reappearing. It puts David Copperfield to shame.

Extra ribs were an evolutionary advantage until BBQ places started doing all you can it ribs on Tuesday nights...

FlaGator
02-05-2009, 07:44 AM
Originally Posted by jinxmchue
Just because they cannot do so without great difficulty does not mean they are "absolutely are not capable of interbreeding." (Emphasis mine.)

It's not a barrier as much as it is a hindrance. It would be difficult for the world's tallest woman to "breed" with the world's smallest man, but it's not impossible.
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/shortbus/minime.png

Throwing a hotdog down the hallway!

jinxmchue
02-05-2009, 09:21 AM
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/shortbus/minime.png

Aw, dammit. You just tossed a monkey wrench into the seriousness of this thread.

(And it's too early for me. I had to think about that picture for a few seconds.)

jinxmchue
02-05-2009, 09:24 AM
Throwing a hotdog down the hallway!

Tossing a toothpick through the Gateway Arch.

Odysseus
02-05-2009, 11:11 AM
Extra ribs were an evolutionary advantage until BBQ places started doing all you can it ribs on Tuesday nights...

That's an argument for natural selection. As the extra-ribbed animals were eaten, the others survived to reproduce. It also explains the aversion that certain species have for BBQ sauce and cole slaw.

If we're going to have an interminable argument about spontaneous evolution vs. intelligent design, then we ought to at least acknowledge that if evolution was guided, it involved, not just trial and error, but a certain amount of practical joking. My evidence:

http://www.mpsvt.org/msms/grade6/sj/mf/plat6.jpg

Rebel Yell
02-05-2009, 11:30 AM
They absolutely are not capable of interbreeding. The size barrier is just as real as any other barrier that prevents fertilization. So in a way, they can be thought of separate species, even though we don't actually classify them that way, depending on how youre using the term. Sometimes all members of a species are capable of interbreeding, other times they are not. Many in the canidae family can interbreed and they are different species. Horses can mate with donkeys and create a mule, and they are different species. Great dane's and chihuahuas cannot interbreed and are technically the same species..... unless interfered with by humans... or they get extremely creative....

The rigidity that the term species makes us envision isn't always true to life.. things get blurry...

My Grandma had a Pomeranian/Rottweiler mix. I used to tell her I'd paid money to see him conceived. Father was a Pom, mother mas a Rottie.

wilbur
02-05-2009, 11:37 AM
That's an argument for natural selection. As the extra-ribbed animals were eaten, the others survived to reproduce. It also explains the aversion that certain species have for BBQ sauce and cole slaw.

If we're going to have an interminable argument about spontaneous evolution vs. intelligent design, then we ought to at least acknowledge that if evolution was guided, it involved, not just trial and error, but a certain amount of practical joking. My evidence:


Strange... I would have used a picture of a human ;)

Rebel Yell
02-05-2009, 11:39 AM
It's hard to ignore the evidence that points toward evolution. I also find it hard to believe there's not someone pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Odysseus
02-05-2009, 12:17 PM
Strange... I would have used a picture of a human ;)
No, that's evidence of a sense of tragedy. The platypus is evidence of a sense of humor.

It's hard to ignore the evidence that points toward evolution. I also find it hard to believe there's not someone pulling the strings behind the scenes.
The problem with the debate on intelligent design is not that it can neither be proven nor disproven to the satisfaction of either side, but that even the discussion is taboo among the intelligentsia. Isaac Newton worked from the assumption that he was discovering the natural laws that were established by a creator, and it didn't restrict his inquiry. Today, that position would have gotten him labelled as a flat-Earther and dismissed as a crank, regardless of the merits of his arguments. That's not science, it's high school cliquishness applied to academia.

But, let's say for the moment that the theory of intelligent design is true: Does it change the basic facts of the fossil record? No. Does it disprove evolution theory? No, in fact, it supports it through an explanation of a possible mechanism that works with natural selection. Does it eliminate the big bang? No, and again, it provides a possible explanation, which is certainly as worthy of inquiry as the other side's assumption that all was born spontaneously from nothing. If the theory is untrue, then the free inquiry into it would eventually disprove it, but the scientific method demands that a hypothesis be subjected to analysis and testing before it is dismissed. The debate over the origins of life, the universe and everything, like the debates in every other branch of knowledge, would be enhanced by the respectful inclusion of diverse theories based in rational calculation and free inquiry, rather than their cavalier dismissal on political grounds.

Molon Labe
02-05-2009, 06:46 PM
It's hard to ignore the evidence that points toward evolution. I also find it hard to believe there's not someone pulling the strings behind the scenes.

I think it would be ignorant to disregard evolution in the sense that things like bacteria evolve to get around medicine, etc. But what I don't believe is that one fish one day just sprouted legs and wings and became a different species.
One of the arguments that seems to make sense is the one that states if animals all evolve, where are the species currently that are moving on to the next level. We should see numerous types of animals in different stages of their evolutionary process (lizards becoming birds as some suggest of dinosaurs...and men becoming ?) Why is there no evidence of them?

Molon Labe
02-05-2009, 07:31 PM
Also QFE. Also what I believe. This is the main reason that I don't want 'creation' taught in public schools. Creationists think that God is not powerful enough to have programmed evolution into his creatures. I, for one, think that God is all-powerful.

Troll
I consider myself a Christian. And I don't want creationism taught in schools either. Me and a very close pastor friend of mine disagree.

One simple reason. Science is based on the study of the Natural. To believe in God and the Bible and Creation is to believe in the Supernatural.

Natural= measurable data

Supernatural = Don't even begin to ask me how God did it.

wilbur
02-05-2009, 08:10 PM
I think it would be ignorant to disregard evolution in the sense that things like bacteria evolve to get around medicine, etc. But what I don't believe is that one fish one day just sprouted legs and wings and became a different species.

Ever seen a flying fish? Ever seen a mudfish? A lung fish?



One of the arguments that seems to make sense is the one that states if animals all evolve, where are the species currently that are moving on to the next level. We should see numerous types of animals in different stages of their evolutionary process (lizards becoming birds as some suggest of dinosaurs...and men becoming ?) Why is there no evidence of them?

See my examples above. Also see ostriches, penguins, flying squirrels, cave fish losing their eyes, and on and on. You see species like this all the time... you just arent "seeing" them.

It's wrong to think of evolution as predetermined progression.. that fish will always evolve into a reptile, and a reptile species today will be working towards evolving into a mammal etc. If you lived 10 million years ago, you might be saying the same thing... where are all the 'transitional species' in the middle of evolution? You would be looking at them.

wilbur
02-05-2009, 08:29 PM
No, that's evidence of a sense of tragedy. The platypus is evidence of a sense of humor.

The problem with the debate on intelligent design is not that it can neither be proven nor disproven to the satisfaction of either side, but that even the discussion is taboo among the intelligentsia.


The problem with intelligent design lies soley in the advocates and the think tanks trying to push it into high school and elementary education when it hasnt been researched even a little bit. Then they claim they are 'expelled' from the scientific process they never attempted to take part in. Nobody has any problem with asking questions about design, or wondering about it. The problem with intelligent design is that it was 'designed' to weasel around court decisions that prevent creationism from being taught in the classroom... because some people don't think its fair... its a work around to violate the spirit of the law because they disagree with the courts.

I think it would be interesting to know if there is a possible formula that can be applied to objects, with no or very little complimentary information that could tell us if it were 'designed'. I wouldn't think such a thing is possible though.... and you can bet your ass Dembski hasn't created it.


Isaac Newton worked from the assumption that he was discovering the natural laws that were established by a creator, and it didn't restrict his inquiry. Today, that position would have gotten him labelled as a flat-Earther and dismissed as a crank, regardless of the merits of his arguments. That's not science, it's high school cliquishness applied to academia.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/23/what-would-newton-do/



But, let's say for the moment that the theory of intelligent design is true: Does it change the basic facts of the fossil record? No. Does it disprove evolution theory? No, in fact, it supports it through an explanation of a possible mechanism that works with natural selection. Does it eliminate the big bang? No, and again, it provides a possible explanation, which is certainly as worthy of inquiry as the other side's assumption that all was born spontaneously from nothing. If the theory is untrue, then the free inquiry into it would eventually disprove it, but the scientific method demands that a hypothesis be subjected to analysis and testing before it is dismissed.


It also demands a hypothesis be subject to analysis and testing before it is taught in schools... but the IDists don't really seem to care for research. They just write pop-sci books, and push ID on school boards before its been through the scientific process. Most cutting edge theories and hypothesis don't make it to schools till years later... after a significant amount of research has been conducted and scientific consensus is strong. None of these things have happened with ID.



The debate over the origins of life, the universe and everything, like the debates in every other branch of knowledge, would be enhanced by the respectful inclusion of diverse theories based in rational calculation and free inquiry, rather than their cavalier dismissal on political grounds.

They dismiss it political or religious because that's what it is. ID is creationism 'evolved' so-to-speak. They can't get creationism, they can't get prayer... so they hope to get ID into the classroom.

Sonnabend
02-05-2009, 10:07 PM
No, that's evidence of a sense of tragedy. The platypus is evidence of a sense of humor.

Uh..Major....that sense of humour comes with two very large, very nasty and very venomous spurs...ensuring it gets the last laugh. :eek:

FlaGator
02-06-2009, 08:12 AM
Uh..Major....that sense of humour comes with two very large, very nasty and very venomous spurs...ensuring it gets the last laugh. :eek:

My ex had a set of those :D

Odysseus
02-06-2009, 10:25 AM
Uh..Major....that sense of humour comes with two very large, very nasty and very venomous spurs...ensuring it gets the last laugh. :eek:
Again, more proof of the capriciousness of the creator. A cross between a duck, an otter and a cobra? That didn't happen by accident. I think that when God was younger, before his angry, Old Testament phase, he was like every other kid, and liked to experiment with his toys. We've all seen a kid switch doll heads or build a tactical nuke with their erector sets, the creator just got creative at the genetic level.

My ex had a set of those :D
Why'd you let her get away? :confused::D

Molon Labe
02-06-2009, 11:37 AM
Ever seen a flying fish? Ever seen a mudfish? A lung fish?



See my examples above. Also see ostriches, penguins, flying squirrels, cave fish losing their eyes, and on and on. You see species like this all the time... you just arent "seeing" them.

It's wrong to think of evolution as predetermined progression.. that fish will always evolve into a reptile, and a reptile species today will be working towards evolving into a mammal etc. If you lived 10 million years ago, you might be saying the same thing... where are all the 'transitional species' in the middle of evolution? You would be looking at them.

I do see what you're talking about....but where is the evidence of Homo Sapiens becoming Supermen? Taking the next step in evolution.

Or you could make the argument that liberals and collectivists are a subspecies....I do see that. :D

Odysseus
02-06-2009, 01:07 PM
I do see what you're talking about....but where is the evidence of Homo Sapiens becoming Supermen? Taking the next step in evolution.

No, that only happens when you go from a red sun to a yellow sun. Man, we really do need to work on the scientific education around here... :D

FlaGator
02-06-2009, 01:30 PM
Again, more proof of the capriciousness of the creator. A cross between a duck, an otter and a cobra? That didn't happen by accident. I think that when God was younger, before his angry, Old Testament phase, he was like every other kid, and liked to experiment with his toys. We've all seen a kid switch doll heads or build a tactical nuke with their erector sets, the creator just got creative at the genetic level.

Why'd you let her get away? :confused::D

Have you heard the story about the scorpion and the frog crossing a river?

Sonnabend
02-06-2009, 03:10 PM
It's a monotreme don't forget, it does not give birth to live young.

No relation to otters or other mammals in that regard.

Mythic
02-06-2009, 06:10 PM
This argument again? :rolleyes:
The evidence showing proof of evolution is overwhelming. The world was not created in 6 days. Life has been evolving constantly and it will continue to evolve forever. But since it is agreed that life must come from life, where did the first life form come from? What created the first life?

Theories of the creation of the universe often say that in the beginning all that existed was the forces of gravity, friction, etc. Where did these forces come from? It is beyond our understanding. I believe that God is at the source somewhere.

FlaGator
02-06-2009, 07:01 PM
This argument again? :rolleyes:
The evidence showing proof of evolution is overwhelming. The world was not created in 6 days. Life has been evolving constantly and it will continue to evolve forever. But since it is agreed that life must come from life, where did the first life form come from? What created the first life?

Theories of the creation of the universe often say that in the beginning all that existed was the forces of gravity, friction, etc. Where did these forces come from? It is beyond our understanding. I believe that God is at the source somewhere.

And if evolution is true then God created it too...:D

djones520
02-06-2009, 08:11 PM
And if evolution is true then God created it too...:D

I've got a lot more respect for people open to that idea then for those who shove the 6 day, dinosuars didn't exist, etc... stuff.

Goldwater
02-06-2009, 08:32 PM
And if evolution is true then God created it too...:D

Lots of evolutionists have this opinion.

Mythic
02-06-2009, 10:21 PM
And if evolution is true then God created it too...
Exactly my point :D

patriot45
02-06-2009, 11:22 PM
I've got a lot more respect for people open to that idea then for those who shove the 6 day, dinosuars didn't exist, etc... stuff.


We do have the same proof. None!

FlaGator
02-06-2009, 11:33 PM
And oddly enough which ever occurred, 6 days or 4.5 billion years, doesn't matter to me. The knowledge does not change my love and devotion to my Creator. I do, however, enjoy watching every one discuss it. The conversations provide much information to meditate over.

jinxmchue
02-07-2009, 09:12 AM
I've gotten quite a bit behind on this thread and I don't know if I want to take the time to catch up, but I really need to ask the evolutionists this (since a comment about the story about the woman who got the huge breasts implants made me think of it):

Do you agree that in evolutionary terms, breasts are "displaced buttocks?"

djones520
02-07-2009, 10:01 AM
I've gotten quite a bit behind on this thread and I don't know if I want to take the time to catch up, but I really need to ask the evolutionists this (since a comment about the story about the woman who got the huge breasts implants made me think of it):

Do you agree that in evolutionary terms, breasts are "displaced buttocks?"

Erm.... where have you ever heard that?

jinxmchue
02-07-2009, 03:35 PM
Erm.... where have you ever heard that?

On a science show about the evolution of sex.

djones520
02-07-2009, 04:40 PM
On a science show about the evolution of sex.

*shrugs* I've never heard that claim before. It doesn't sound very plausible to me, given that butts don't lactate...

Doesn't really make much sense to have a butt, have the genetics rewrite themselves to move it to the "front" of the body, and at the same time grow new butts.

Odysseus
02-07-2009, 05:06 PM
I've gotten quite a bit behind on this thread and I don't know if I want to take the time to catch up, but I really need to ask the evolutionists this (since a comment about the story about the woman who got the huge breasts implants made me think of it):

Do you agree that in evolutionary terms, breasts are "displaced buttocks?"
I would think that it would depend on what position you're in. :D

*shrugs* I've never heard that claim before. It doesn't sound very plausible to me, given that butts don't lactate...
Which is definitely proof that there's a God. :D