NewGuy's Disproving Evolution Thread

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...One might as well reas J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Silmarillion"...It provides about as much ontological insight as any religious writings one might care to name.

Oh. So you have read "The Case for a Creator"? If so, please fill me in. On what parts do you disagree and, if so, how?

Or is your reply just a prejudicial and presumptive comment?

 

[deaddude]

"look at you back off like a little bitch. haha!"

rtwngAvngr OCA is standing by his beliefs, something many people respect (including me). His comprimise was that people who believe in evolution arent necesarily going to hell if Genesis turns out to be correct. This comprimise is a rare thing in the Fudementalist Christian (or at least thats been my experience) and is a welcomed change to the fire and brimstone conversion attempts that I'm accostomed to.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Oh. So you have read "The Case for a Creator"? If so, please fill me in. On what parts do you disagree and, if so, how?

Or is your reply just a prejudicial and presumptive comment?

Good luck getting cognisant thought out of bully, matt.

 

[Zhukov]

mattskramer,

Is that the same book where the author talks about things like the shape, size, and proximity of our moon with respect to the Earth, and the deviation of our solar revolutions?

If so I heard that individual on Dennis Prager's radio talk show.

 

[deaddude]

OK, since bully doesnt seem to be responding so I will

"Oh. So you have read "The Case for a Creator"? If so, please fill me in. On what parts do you disagree and, if so, how?"


I believe what bully was saying is that, in matters of higher beings and relgious views, that any writing (fiction or non-fiction) is approximately equall in content. A Religious experience is as likely to come from Tolkien as it is from Strobel. Or at leasts thats how it seems to an agnostic

For my personal take on the subject of Evolution

No I havent read "The Case for a Creator" (I'll take this time to remind you that I am not the one who wrote it off), but I have read the bible a few times, Ive read abriged versions of the Mahabarratah ( good luck reading an unabriged version, it's 8 times the length of the bible and it's in sanscrit) I am currently reading the Koran, Have read the Torah, Have been to Russian Orthodox cathedrals and did some more reading there, have done reasearch and written term papers on Hatian Vodoun and I still think that out of all the creation stories that Darwin seems to be the most likely.

 

[mattskramer]

I'm waiting for someone to discover the fossil of a medium-necked giraffe.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by deaddude
out of all the creation stories that Darwin seems to be the most likely.

Especially since Darwin never stated there was or was not a god. Questions of theology are not the realm of science. That is for the individual to decide on their own.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I'm waiting for someone to discover the fossil of a medium-necked giraffe.

Perhaps it was this thing,

http://www.prehistorics.com/moropus.htm

The thing with "missing links" is if you are looking for a connection between species A and species Z and you find M, you now need to find a missing link between A and M and M and Z.

A to F, F to M, M to S, S to Z, and so on.

 

[Zhukov]

Did you see my question about The Case for a Creator Matt above?

 

[mattskramer]

I don't see your question. Wait. Yes. I think that is the same person.

""Now allow me to quote Darwin:

'But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.'"

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/darwin.htm

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I don't see your question.

me
Is that the same book where the author talks about things like the shape, size, and proximity of our moon with respect to the Earth, and the deviation of our solar revolutions?

 

[deaddude]

I am about to say a few things that many people will find offensive, If you are one of those people and you read my post remember that I am not denounceing your faith, I am just being skeptical.


"If humans evolved from primates, then humans become no better than any other animal. However, the Bible makes it clear that humans are not just another part of creation. We are specifically made "in His image," with a soul that animals do not possess. That is why I cannot believe that humans evolved from primates."


Can you offer me proof that (no Biblical References just plain objective fact) that we are better than any other animal, other than our being smarter. Can you prove to me that you have a soul? If you can then can you prove to me that oh a shark, ape, or eagle doesn't.



"Another question that evolution cannot answer is the origin of life. I refuse to believe that a lightning bolt hit a pond full of proteins and fused together enough DNA for a single-celled organism to come to life. It would take more faith for me to believe that than it would to believe in God"

Yes it does seem like an awfully slim chance, however it is scientificaly possible just not probable.

It still seems less likely (to me) that a being who has either existed forever or created himself said "let there be light."

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I don't see your question. Wait. Yes. I think that is the same person.

""Now allow me to quote Darwin:

'But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.'"

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/darwin.htm

It says, latter on in your link, that that may have been true during Darwin's time, but that isn't the case anymore and a large collection of fossils has been accumulated.

It then goes to just say that puncutated equilibrium doesn't fully explain the apparent discrepancies in the fossil record.

This link says this:

The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

That article talks a great deal about punctuated equilibrium, but I'm not an evolutionary biologist and am not familiar with quite a bit of the technical terminology they use.

As I understand it however, the most dramatic changes in species would occur in small geographically isolated areas, and then succesfull species would escape and spread greatly. Therefore it is likley that you will find one similar species over a wide geographic area, but you must confine your search to a localized area to find numerous 'missing links' between a species and its precursor species.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can you offer me proof that (no Biblical References just plain objective fact) that we are better than any other animal, other than our being smarter. Can you prove to me that you have a soul? If you can then can you prove to me that oh a shark, ape, or eagle doesn't.

So essentially you are asking: Other than the attributes that prove we are better than any other animals, can you name any proof that we are better than animals? what a silly question is that.

We are better than animals for many simple reasons. The main one is we are self aware. We can tell the difference between right and wrong. we can choose either.

Second, we are smarter. Look around you. find me an animal that has been able to survive, adapt, learn and achieve like we can.

 

[William Joyce]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Second, we are smarter. Look around you.

OK. I'm looking...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Oh. So you have read "The Case for a Creator"? If so, please fill me in. On what parts do you disagree and, if so, how?

Or is your reply just a prejudicial and presumptive comment?

My comment was not directed at you old son, and until somebody can provide objective, independently, and repeatedly verifiable evidence of a supreme being, I will continue not to believe in such an entity.

The arguments for such an entity are rooted in a priori, or deductive reasoning, which takes one from a stated premise to a formally valid conclusion...From the general to the specific. Given a premise, a formally valid conclusion can be reached. However, it can be either true or false, hence no genuinely useful conclusions can be reached.

Inductive, or a posteriori, resoning involves the observation of relations over time. This allows one to infer general principles from specific events. This process is also self-correcting...As new knowledge and experience lead to new inferences. The caveat here is that we that the relations are not separate from the events. In other words, these relationships are objective, and verifiable, and not mere mental fabrications. Failing to do so leads us back down the path to absolutism and all of its attendant problems.

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I'm waiting for someone to discover the fossil of a medium-necked giraffe.

I belive the giraffes neck got longer by trying to get a better view from Noah's ark.

 

[Zhukov]

Alright, it's been about eight hours, and since you haven't posted my request from the earlier thread as I asked, I shall do it for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6145

NewGuy
Darwin has been proved wrong

me
You just go on believing that if it makes you feel better.

Meanwhile humanity will continue to use selective breeding techniques to change wild flowers into commercial grain crops, and wild animals into domesticated pets over long periods of time.

Did you know that cabbage, brussel sprouts, cauliflower, collards and brocoli are all varieties of the same species of plant that humans have selectively breed into seperate varieties of vegetables?

me
Zea mays, or corn, was transformed using selective breeding techniques over thousands of years from a wild grass called teosinte to the commercial grain grown so abundantly in the great state of Ohio today.

At present corn and teosinte are still the same species, but artificial selection by humans has only been going on for a couple thousand years. The transformation between distinct, non-breeding, species should typical take between 10,000 years to half a million years.

Still what it does prove is that the mechanisms of Darwin's evolution exist and are provable, from genetic mutations to genetic inheritance and change over generations.

That is not to say that the conclusions that Darwin reached concerning the origin of Homo sapiens can currently be proven, but the study of the mechanisms by which he came to that conclusion are obvious and easily observable in the natural world.

NewGuy
That is exactly my point. Mechanisms are not a chain of events and not proof.

The only way anything you have suggested has been proven to have happened is by human intervention. If we want a detailed thread on where Darwinism went wrong, we can do that too.

me
?

You said Darwin has been proven wrong. He has not been. That was my point.

Human intervention is not that much different from natural selection.

If we don't like the way certain plants turn out, we do not allow them to interbreed with those plants of the same species that we do like.

If a mutation that naturally occurs in a living organism adversely affects it's ability to reach functional maturity it will not leave progeny, and that mutated characterisitc will not persist in the gene pool. And vice versa. This is obvious, and it is called natural selection, that being the foundation of evolution.

NewGuy
As I said, I would be more than happy to adress this later tonight. I am working and proof/analysis of the issue requires a bit more time than I have right now. If you are convinced I am wrong, I would be quite happy if you started a new thread so we could discuss it.

me
Why? I adequately answered Lucky C's orignal post earlier, and we have since hijacked this thread completely.

All I want from you is: the disputation of the concept of genetic changes in a species over succesive generations over time by the forces and mechanisms of natural selection.

And if you post another's words please site your source.

Alright. That requested thread has been started here. Everyone is caught up on the gist of the conversation. They can check the link if the want the whole thing.

The bold text is all yours. I won't be on till sometime tommorow so take your time editing it and getting it just right. Diagrams would be nice too.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Alright, it's been about eight hours, and since you haven't posted my request from the earlier thread as I asked, I shall do it for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6145

Well, smart-ass, I have some issues going on here at home I have to take care of. If you would take a look at the foundation of your argument, and look at the previous thread I adressed this in several weeks ago, you would see step one.

That step one would be that every dating system for all of your fossil evidence is garbage.

How about cutting a guy some slack so he can get his family life in order and prepare a scientifically proper lengthy response to an ungrateful skeptic who can't read the other thread in the first place.

 

[NewGuy]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6203
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6203
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6203
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6203

Now nobody except the insanely blind RWA can say they didn't know I responded.