Here is the the background for this post. I posted a video called Debunking Evolution I opened up the comments section on the video and started some interesting conversations with a biology professor called GreedyCapybara. We argued back and forth about whales, Noa’s Flood, and other things. The conversations were getting long and YouTube only allows 500 letters in their comment section and the professor started to email me on YouTube. I stated that I had a website with a feedburner that displayed all the comments because I like the open forum atmosphere. So here we are with his first email that he sent me at YouTube
He Writes:
I have decided message you as the amount of comments on your video is getting silly, not to mention the fact that I have to scroll down a very large list of comments to get to the few you have approved and tried to respond to, I will divide up this message into the topics being discussed in the comments for ease of access, I would appreciate it if you did the same.
Just for the record I approved all the professors comments -Maximus
Origin of life:
-Getting organic chemicals is simple, Three of the five kingdoms Plants, Eugenia and Monoarea use this as either their only or main source of energy.
-These organisms use sunlight as an agent to turn CO2 and H2O into either glucose-a or in some rare cases glucose-b, both organic molecules.
-However organic molecules more often form by themselves in any polar solution (a liquid or gas where the primary molecules have a slight net charge at either end), this is how we get amino-acids, nucleotides and many other organic molecules that are found in water and some hydrocarbons (which themselves are organic).Age of the Earth:
-there is little beyond a Gama-ray Burst (huge astronomical event) or actively firing “heavy” particles such as neutrons or protons into the nucleus of an atom that can change the rate of decay.
-even when firing “heavy” particles into such atoms the result would (if these were used for dating) always be a lower age rather than a higher one because the particle would knock neutrons into of the sample thus adding mass not subtracting it.Whales:
-All four species I named are in fact whales, both by the taxonomical definition that I presented and by your own dictionary definition that you presented.
-I actually did expect you to make up your own definition rather than use one from a dictionary that even a quick glance at the well known species that I named would confirm my prediction.Evolution, is it a science?:
-Evolution is in fact a scientific theory and a fact, in my opinion it is ironic that due to Creationist critics evolution has progressed fast and is far more better understood then General Relativity (Gravity), be it that General Relativity is known to be false yet taught in schools anyway but I hope you see my point.
-Evidence for evolution included but not limited to: Embryology, Genetics, Microbiology, Biochemistry, The Fossil Record, Genetic Markers, Mutation and Variation, Radioactive Decay and Organic Chemistry.Peer Review:
-Yes, I like all scientists take a roll in the peer review process, we review, sight and offer corrections to experiments and articles, this speaks to sciences strength for example I was working for a treatment for Lung Cancer and conducted and experiment to optimise lung cell growth from stem cells, however a quick review of my experiment from a Polish chap in which he sighted my work revealed that I had left out a particular variable and by including it I could have more accurate results.I will respond to the professors arguments in the comment sections below. Feel free to chime in.
To wrap it all up here is how I feel Please Watch the film below.
On your “origin of life” comment that getting organic life is simple, yeah now its simple. I think that is a logical fallacy everything is in place now so it appears simple to get organic chemicals because the mechanisms to generate it already exist. As far as the the science that you explained on how they work chemically I cant see where any Creationist would argue with you. The laws governing chemical reactions is the interesting part. You may argue “They just do” I would argue “That is what they were designed to do” That is the chemical elements all working in harmony to produce intelligible result. So again I see design there.
On the comment “Age of the Earth” There are way too many assumptions for these techniques. However this does not mean they are wrong by any means. They are of course different disciplines leading to a relatively same conclusion, right? WRONG! This does by no means thwart my stand in fact it validates it because of the variations in the readings. When you say “give or take a million years” and the fact there are so many different disciplines. All evolutionary proponents Suggests to me its very flawed.
Concerning Whales its interesting to me that some do not see the heckling of their own comments. For instance the professor expected me to make up my own definition of what a whale is. Really? Here is the definition of a whale: any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened. Here are the pictures of the so called whales. Need I say more?
Evolution, is it science? The question of whether evolution is science would seem to be unnecessary. Surely a subject which is so widely taught and believed must be scientific! But it is not the fact that many people, even scientists, believe a theory that shows it to be correct, but rather that it passes reasonable and unbiased tests of verification. I have seen many papers by evolutionary biologists presenting evidence and arguing about various mechanisms of evolution, but I have not seen a single paper in a scientific journal seriously considering the question of whether evolution is true and attempting to answer it by putting the theory to an unbiased test. And yet this theory is nearly universally accepted and taught, and those who reject it are considered as fanatical and risk professional ostracism! This has to be one of the most unusual chapters in the history of science. The many recognized problems with the theory of evolution never seem to lead biologists to the obvious conclusion that there is something wrong with their theory; rather, they simply continue to patch it up.
Evolutionary biologists construct many plausible stories about how life developed and evolved, based largely on the fossil record. But how do we know that these stories are true? This history is based to some extent on time periods provided by radiometric dating. But, to my knowledge, there has not been a single double-blind test of radiometric dating methods. Just to illustrate how human bias could unintentionally affect radiometric dating, it could be that there are many different kinds of rock that can be used for dating, and geologists may choose which kind is most suitable depending on the geological period. So we might have one kind of rock being used for dating one period, another kind being used for another, and so on. Or there could be modifications of techniques, and the technique chosen might depend on the geological period being studied. Such possibilities could lead to bias that might be eliminated by a double-blind test. Another problem is that dates might not be published that are too far away from the expected values. Furthermore, there are many problems with radiometric dating in itself that creationists have pointed out. One thing to keep in mind is that when geologists say that a radiometric dating technique is accurate to within one percent, they do not mean that the measured age is within one percent of the true age. What they mean is that if all of the assumptions of the method hold, then the measured age is within one percent of the true age. These assumptions have to do with restrictions on whether parent or daughter elements enter or leave the sample during the measured time span. Geologists admit that the measured ages are often 20 percent or more away from the assumed true age.
Even if radiometric dates were accurate, it would still not prove the theory of evolution. One response of evolutionists to such questions is that creationism is not science. The implication is that if creationism is false, then evolution must be true. But just because scientists cannot think of an alternative is no reason to accept a theory. I don’t know of other fields where a theory is accepted simply because no one can think of an alternative.
In arguing that creation is not science, evolutionists expect creation to pass tests that are not reasonable. They expect creationists to be able to say why God created the specific animals that He did, or why He set the third-position codons as He did. Such questions are not necessarily possible to answer. There may have been many things going on relating to the Creation that we have no idea of. We cannot even predict what a Beethoven would compose or a Van Gogh would paint; much less can we predict what a Creator would create! It would be like asking archaeologists at a dig to predict what they would uncover in the next area of their site. If they could not say, then we could say that their field was not scientific, and that they must explain the ruins they found not as the activity of intelligent beings, but rather as the results of wind and erosion and other natural forces.
Evolutionary biologists will often argue that evolution has been observed. By this they mean tiny changes in species that have been seen in nature or in the laboratory. Because we have seen such tiny changes, they argue, given enough time, large changes could also take place. However, this line of argument is not logically correct. Just because I can jump an inch does not mean I can jump to the moon. Just because I can walk an inch does not mean I can walk around the world.
The similarities among life forms are claimed to be an evidence for evolution. All life uses the same genetic code, and all proteins spiral to the left instead of to the right. However, if these similarities were not observed, it would not argue against the theory of evolution. Rather, biologists would say that life originated more than once. And, if these similarities did not exist, it could be used as an argument against creation. Biologists could ask why the Creator did not do everything the same way always. Furthermore, there are differences as well as similarities among various life forms. If the similarities prove evolution, do the differences prove creation?
Another argument that is put forth in favor of evolution is the supposed hierarchical structure of living things. Even if life is hierarchical, organized into classes and sub-classes and so on, this is not necessarily a logical consequence of the theory of evolution. This is only so if we assume that once a feature is acquired, it is retained in evolutionary descendents. So once a backbone is formed, the descendents will retain it, but animals without a backbone will probably not develop it. However, one can just as well imagine vertebrates losing their backbones and evolving to invertebrates. If a bacterium can evolve to a man, why can’t a man evolve to a bacterium? Thus evolution would be just as well adapted to a non-hierarchical organization of life as to a hierarchical one.
The on-line Encyclopedia Britannica has an article about evolution that claims that molecular distances between organisms are linearly related to their assumed divergence times as seen in the fossil record. This is claimed to be a verification of the theory of evolution. However, there are a number of problems with this analysis. First, when deciding on common ancestors, biologists may use the observed differences between organisms, and reject ancestors that appear too soon or too late. Second, dating methods have some latitude, and may be calibrated to some extent based on evolutionary assumptions. Third, the organisms to consider in this comparison may have been chosen to make the graph come out right. Such a claim about a straight-line relationship could only be established by a rigorous statistical analysis. And it would have to consider the entire fossil record, and not just a selected subset of it.
The fact that different organisms are found in different layers of the fossil record is claimed to show evolution. But as ReMine points out in The Biotic Message, evolution did not predict the fossil sequence; it simply adapted itself to it. So we cannot see the fossil sequence as verifying the theory of evolution. It is claimed that the fact that we do not see birds and trilobites together verifies evolution. But if we did see them together, evolutionary biologists would simply modify their evolutionary trees and speak about the incompleteness of the fossil record.
Creationism, by constrast, was formulated before the fossil record and most of the findings of biology were known. Because of this, the creationist nature of the fossil record and of life in general really is a vindication of the theory. By this I mean such features as the Cambrian explosion, the gaps in the fossil record, the improbabilities of abiogenesis, and numerous other findings discussed by creationists in general and elsewhere on this web page.
I would like to see evolutionary biologists put their theory to the test and give us some rigorous evidence that it is true, if they can, instead of merely arguing about mechanisms and presenting plausible scenarios. A few predictions of the theory that pan out or fail to materialize will not settle the issue, but rather some meaningful statistical tests. Until this is done, I would suggest that they recognize that this is a theory without a shadow of support.
On Peer Review: There are two key acceptance/rejection strata a manuscript must navigate following submission: the editorial level and the reviewer level (28). At first submission, editors can summarily reject a manuscript as inappropriate for their target audience or for a variety of other reasons. Although statistics vary widely by journal, up to 10% of manuscripts are rejected at this point (28). If the manuscript is deemed suitable by the editor, it advances to the expert reviewer stage. The number of reviewers is typically limited, with journals averaging two reviewers per manuscript (67). The reviewer’s comments and recommendations are returned to the editor, who makes the decision to accept or reject the manuscript, often relying solely on the reviewers’ recommendations. The manuscript can be accepted without revision, accepted with revision, or rejected. If a revision is requested, there is no guarantee of acceptance, and the manuscript may be rejected again after revision. Final acceptance/rejection rates for publication vary widely between scientific journals; in some instances, manuscript rejection can be as high as 90% (28). Read More
Origin of life
I never said that getting organic “life” was simple, only that getting organic chemicals is simple.
Yes it is true that such systems are in place in modern organisms so to make the formation of organic chemicals such as sugars faster and easier. However as I also stated that any polar liquid can and does form organic molecules, examples of polar liquids are water which covers 70% of the planet by surface area and hydrocarbons (carbohydrates) which themselves are organic.
The laws governing chemical reactions are in fact very interesting, it primarily has to do with the “electro-magnetic” force, one of four forces that govern our universe and the stable configurations of an atom, for example Hydrogen (H) is not perfectly stable but Helium (He) is, so in order to become more stable the Hydrogen pairs up with another Hydrogen to create a Hydrogen molecule (H2), as molecules get pulled apart as in a polar solution the molecules they create become more complicated to deal with this environment.
Yes, indeed you could argue that one or more God(s) designed the electro-magnetic force, but the fact is that this is how molecules behave and it is perfectly natural to obtain organic molecules with as far as we can tell not supernatural intervention.
Well the electromagnetic force is indeed an argument for my stand of a young earth and supernatural explanations and I am glad that you bought it up. The average “intensity” of the earth’s magnetic field has decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829. The field’s intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical “energy” stored in the field. Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829. Read More
Going back to your point on the observation of chemicals I think that it is a fascinating study learning how chemicals work. However the intelligibility part about it seems to escape you. These processes and systems point to a Creator. I am going to argue for the Christian God as laid out in Genesis though Revelation because of historical reliably, testimony and evidence. I doubt any of the other Gods that you are suggesting can give you all of this and more. There are of course remarkable claims in the Bible but haven’t they always been there? When it said that the earth hung upon nothing Job 26:7 men believed it sat on elephants and turtles. When evolutionist said there never was a beginning that the universe always existed the Bible said it had a beginning Gen 1:1 The hydrologic cycle Job 36:27,28 Advanced mathematics using pi 1 Kings 7:23 not to mention tons of archeological evidences and testimonies. In fact it historically speaking you cannot even start to discredit the Bible many have and lost because of new discoveries. I would also like to point out this is how we know the Mormons are a false religion. Their “Book of Mormon” speaks of great towns that existed here in America and that there were horses here at the time of Christ but we know thought archeology that there were no horses here until Spaniards brought them years later. Also it is impossible for a town with hundreds of thousands of people to not leave one shred of evidence behind. Every town written in the Book of Mormon has not one shed of evidence left behind. So you say why the Christian God? Simple, that’s where the evidence leads me.
Age of the Earth
First and foremost for some reason I cannot access your video, due to a bad connection on my end, so I cannot comment on that.
You are correct for the most part, some methods of radiometric dating are only accurate to within a few million years, this is far from inaccurate when dealing with such massive ages as that of the Earth. However if you want something more accurate I would recommend depending on the condition Uranium-235 dating or the dreaded Carbon-14 dating, be warned however these only give an accurate dating to anything about 16,000 years old or less and are useless to marine life, or anything without large amounts of the suitable isotopes.
I think you are referring to my comment “we can measure the age of the Earth to an accuracy of 0.2 billion years” and yes that is true in most cases, the method we use for that is Iron-Iron dating or Argon-Argon dating, which are pretty useless when doing anything but dating the age of the planet or say the age of gas deposits because they rely on a relatively small change in isotopic frequency and thus a relatively small drop in weight.
I think of this kind of science as in its very early stages. These dating methods have not been around that long and like I said before there are way too many assumptions. In fact since you are the one that does this kind of work why don’t you lay it out for us how many steps there are and how many assumptions that you have to make to get to the date?
I’m a Biologist remember, there is a distinction between the sciences…so no I doing radiometric dating is not part of my job, I have however seen it done and have a loose knowledge of how it works.
-first one must work out the decay rate of the particular isotope, normally we have this on file somewhere but for the sake of argument this time we don’t.
-one must take thousands of tiny measurements of the slow degeneration in mass of the sample, we can then preform a simple calculation from these measurements to achieve what is known as a “half life” and the “rate of decay”.
-one then has to compare the original sample’s atomic mass to that of a new sample or one of a known age (i.e. carbon-14 from a tree planted at a known time)
-from there it is again a simple calculation to know how must mass has been lost and thus the time period that the sample has been present.
The only assumption we make is that people haven’t fired “heavy” particles (eg:protons or neutrons) into every single atom in the sample sent for testing.
I don’t know if you saw the video that I posted on radiometric dating but here it is again. Would you say that this is an accurate description of what you are talking about? Like I said before this is very interesting stuff but saying that it calculates years is stretching it. I would encourage anyone who believes and not believes in evolution to actually sit through this video and do the experiment and then really tell me how you get years from it.
Again, I cannot watch these videos due to a faulty internet connection on my end (it’s about dial up speed, Biology does not pay well).
But all I can really do here is tell you again how radiometric dating works, be it rephrasing again.
Lets say you have a bar of chocolate that you eat a certain amount of each day, this causes the chocolate to drop in mass when you weigh it, if you have the original mass and know the amount of ass the chocolate loses every day then you can tell how long the chocolate has been losing weight.
Does it make sense now, I’m sorry I’m not sure how I could make the process any simpler.
A “year” in radiometric dating (although no technique is accurate enough to determine age to that accuracy, nor are tree rings) is a certain drop in mass of the sample because as the isotope decomposes it gives off neutrons and protons (the two heavy particles that I mentioned before) as radiation resulting in a drop in mass that we can measure.
Very interesting science here and it is fascinating to me. But like Dr. Henry Morris has pointed out that all of the radiometric methods involve difficulties because of assumptions which are not necessarily correct.
1. The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
3. The rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
4. Leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.
5. The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
1. I’ve explained this, there is legitimately nothing aside from firing “heavy” particles (i.e. protons and neutrons) into the nucleus of an atom that can change the rate of decay short of an event known as a “gama-ray burst”.
2.firstly we don’t test crystals if we can avoid it they grow in the wrong conditions and throw off our readings if we do not test them quickly enough. However this is correct for with many tests throughout the sample, if they all point to the same age aside from the occasional anomaly then we can call that age correct.
3.okay I should have explained this right off the bat, there is a reason why certain types of radiometric dating are only good to a certain date, because we cannot get an accurate date when end product is present…for example if I want to use Uranium-Lead dating and there is an abnormally large amount of lead present then the ages one will get will be all over the place.
Beyond that parent/daughter isotopes tend not to introduce themselves to samples taken from within solid rock.
4.Again this tends not to happen when the sample is encased in solid rock, but when this does happen (in artificial situations that we recreate at the University) it is easily detectable…for example one could get many dates from one sample.
5.the original amount of mother and daughter isotopes (elements refer to particular base chemicals where as isotopes are different forms of the same element) is known, there will always be an excess of the parent and an almost complete absence of the daughter isotope because living organisms tend not to live for/rocks are not present on the surface for the half life of any isotope used for radiometric thus the isotopes cannot decay within the organism/ on the surface.
These are not assumptions but facts (apart from the crystal part, that’s just bullshit), with evidence to support it…I don’t know how much longer I can sit here repeating myself as you ask the same question/put forward the same debunked rubbish over and over again.
In you illustration above you used a chocolate bar to illustrate decay. You calculate the loss of mass. I think this is kind of nuts because I can take 5 years to eat the chocolate bar to 2 minutes. No it does not make sense at all. Like I said I lived on a farm before and I have seen animals die etc. If they die in winter it takes longer for them to decompose than in the summer. I also know that the rate of decay is different from wet to dry and other factors. When performing the radiometric dating method the people have to calculate the light in the room because it interferes with the reading. This is nuts, if just light interferes with the reading then you never have an accurate reading. Temperature, light, humidity, etc you can call this science if you want I call it guess work.
Yes animals take longer to decompose in the winter than in the summer, this is due to the limited heat energy available to allow for bacterial chemical reactions to take place and enable decomposition.
However this is not by a factor of thousands of years now is it?
No, you misunderstand, light can interfere with the instruments not the actual sample, this is because the instruments are so accurate. This is why we can only give predictions to an accurate of a few thousand or a few million years depending on the type of dating used.
If we cut down a tree we can count the rings at the bast to give us the age, each ring represents a year. What represents a year in radiometric dating?
This post has ended up somewhere else other than where it was supposed to go, so I’m just going to copy it again.
A “year” in radiometric dating (although no technique is accurate enough to determine age to that accuracy, nor are tree rings) is a certain drop in mass of the sample because as the isotope decomposes it gives off neutrons and protons (the two heavy particles that I mentioned before) as radiation resulting in a drop in mass that we can measure.
Whales
I only mentioned the second last two species of whale, plus Basilosaurs (a species similar to Dorodon) and the Sperm Whale (a modern whale that hunts large prey, has teeth and a jaw structure similar to Dorodon and Basilisaurs.
I asked you to come up with your own definition as all four species of whale I mentioned (Ambilocetus, Dorodon, Basilosaurs and the Sperm Whale) all fit the taxonomical definition of a whale and the common dictionary definitions yet despite me making this clear MaximusMcc still did not acknowledged them as whales. Therefore I asked why he didn’t classify them as whales and if so what was his definition of a whale and why they four species I mentioned did not fit into this category.
Technically Ambliocetus does not fit into this Genus, although it fits into MaximusMcc’s dictionary definition (with is fish like body, flattened head, modified forelimbs, etc.), it does not fit the taxonomical definition perfectly and is what we refer to as a “transition” meaning it has most characteristics of a whale, but because it lacks a fluke (the flattened tail of whales, dolphins, etc) does not fit into the Genus perfectly.
Here is the definition that I put forth straight from the dictionary at dictionary.com Whale:any of the larger marine mammals of the order Cetacea, especially as distinguished from the smaller dolphins and porpoises, having a fishlike body, forelimbs modified into flippers, and a head that is horizontally flattened.
Now for all of your specimens to match everything in this definition as vague as it is they would have to have “flippers”. It is clear to me that “Ambilodetius” has legs for walking like and amphibian so i would not include this in that definition.
Basilosaurs definitely resembles this kind definition no question.
Dorudon too is similar to this definition.
I do have to admit though that I thought you were promoting Early Ungulates, Mesonychisds as matching that definition as well. Are you?
Excerpt from our converstaion on YouTube
no I never promoted anything other than those four Cetacea, but yes I can understand your confusion regarding Ambilodetius it does indeed have what are almost fully formed legs, but if that is your only reference then I can also see why you don’t know that as far as we can tell the front limbs are adapted to flippers.
Although not often depicted as such the shoulder joint is designed to allow for such motion and if you take a look at the front feet you would notice how they are locked into place like a whales “hand” forming a flipper shape, the only difference is that Ambilodetius has limbs present before the flipper.
But again like I said it does not actually fit into the Genus perfectly, as it shows most aspects of being a perfect Cetacea but not others (i.e. lacking a fluke the flattened tail present in all whales, dolphins, etc.), this was my attempt to show you what a transitional form looked like…but then you came with an inaccurate dictionary definition that included Ambilodetius, thus ruining my plan.
LOL, I am sorry to ruin the plan I was just trying to understand what you were calling a whale so to get on the same page as you I looked up the definition and posted it, {it was actually the first definition that came up in Google}. I can see there are different creatures there and I can appreciate their similarities and their differences.
yes, however taxonomy (the system by which we classify species) has nothing to do with evolution
Dorodon, Basilosaurs and the Sperm Whale are all classed as Cetacea while Ambilocetus is both classed as Cetacea and not, as it has features of this Genus and features that no animal in this Genus has or lacks features unique to this genus (i.e. no fluke).
Although getting your definition from Google…kind of week no offence, kind of like getting information about religion from Wikipedia or basing an opinion on Creationists from the works of Kent Hovend (seriously?), though I am happy that you are doing some research…looking into Google is kind of new age for me, I’m old school I learn about taxonomy from a library.
Firstly, science requires only belief in mathematics (i.e. what math predicts is reality), Biology has little mathematics and thus requires next to not belief. Yes, it is true relatively few modern papers question evolution, while evolution is a hot debate in the States, Middle East and India because of their religious and creationist ties the debate ended more than a century ago here in Australia and slightly under a century ago in Europe, Africa and Asia, and this is where most scientific papers concerning any unit of Biology come from (state funding not available in the US make such advancements possible).
Secondly, yes we modify theories as new evidence arises…so what? When new evidence is found we cannot hold to the old theory, this is called Dogma and is hated upon in science. However this does not lead to the “throwing out” of evolutionary theory because all evidence still points to that conclusion, in the same way the discovery of chemical theory did nothing to disprove gravity (there are approx 100 elements all combining in different ways to give molecules, these have mass+objects fall towards other objects with mass).
Thirdly, there are many double blind tests for radiometric dating, though not normally done in the field because we may only have equipment for a certain type of dating available, however the Geology department at the University where I work conducts such tests with it’s students to show how radiometric dating works; each team of students receives a sample of known age, dates it being told that it is a different age, normally the students will try several times to get a lower of higher age before returning saying that it is much younger or much older than they were told, they then present their findings and are told how close this is to the real age of the rock.
Fourthly, no scientist in their right mind would assert that “if creationism is wrong then evolution must be correct”, this tends to be the case with Geologists however, which simply refer to the age of the Earth and have relatively little scientific training or students…which are teenagers and don’t actually know what they are saying.
Fifthly, The next paragraph simply asserts a stereotype of scientists that is presented by students and is not true of the scientific community.
Sixthly, we have actually seen specification in cattle, dogs, camels and bacteria in recent years, however evolution is not as simple as you claim>
“If I can walk an inch does not mean I can walk around the world”
yes it does, all you have to do is walk an inch over and over again, this is why we say there is no distinction between “Macro-Evolution and Micro-Evolution” because no such mechanism exists to prevent you from walking an inch over and over again.
Seventh, actually if similarities were not seen between species it would mean that the theory of evolution is next to impossible, no the slight differences between organisms is an example of mutation and natural selection, species gradually become more and more different over time, you cannot expect to look like your great, great grandson to look exactly like your great grandfather, can you?
Eighth, regarding your point on common linage we cannot reject a fossil based on it’s age, for example Microraptor (a “dino-bird”) appears far to early in the fossil record be the dinosaur ancestor of birds, yet it has most features of both, drawing the entire dinosaur-bird question into place. We cannot reject a fossil based on differences if it fits the taxonomic definition of such a creature.
Ninth, yes as new fossils and evidence appears scientists must adjust their theories accordingly, clinging to old hypothesis is called Dogma, and evolution does make some predictions about the fossil record, just not exact dates only the order in which certain organisms should appear.
Tenth, I have no idea what you are talking about the lack of evidence, what evidence would you like
The Fossil Record; which shows the paths organisms took throughout history
Dating; that shows us that the order of such organisms is perfectly consistent with the theory
Genetics, Taxonomy, Embryology or Biochemistry; which provides evidence for common ancestral traits
or
Breeding; which provides direct evidence for variation with each and every offspring of an organism.
First: science requires only belief in mathematics (i.e. what math predicts is reality), Biology has little mathematics and thus requires next to not belief. – Ill buy that.Seems to me like biology has some supernatural tones ringing even according to your definition. I can see the more the united stated follow the theory the more we fall apart and the less educated we are. Its sad to say the least we use to be the leaders of the free world now we are becoming enslaved by a beast that can be wrong thousands of times and still reign. This goes in with your second point, funny that its good for you but you cant extend the same to creationist or ID proponents.
I will continue on in my responses on separate comments in order not to ramble.
Supernatural? where in Biology is there any hint of anything supernatural?
Yes, US is still the leaders of what you know as “the free world”, however especially here in Australia China and other Asian countries influence far out weighs that of the states.
And as far as concerning ID, you are correct, despite all evidence to the country the only thing ID has changed is now it allows for variations within species, despite the fact that mutation beyond the species barrier has been observed time and time again, they still hold onto the same hypothesis…this is called Dogma and why Creationism and ID are not accepted as sciences.
Supernatural is written all over biology. I detect supernatural design by natural processes. You say they react chemically which is a natural process, yes this is true of course. Then you say the magnetic field has something to do with the chemically charges particles. NICE! Then you tell me how all these species are benefiting from trillions upon trillion of beneficial mutations. GEES! Then you tell me how all these things have to work together in order to survive WOW! Sure sounds like a miracle to me either way but I only have one problem, I don’t believe in miracles its not natural.
No, electro-magnetic force, that covers magnetism and electric currents this force is directly responsible for chemical bonding because chemical bonding is caused by electrical charges (positivity charged protons and negatively charged electrons).
Mutations are not magical, nor are a lot of them, yes you could put forward a case saying that a supernatural force decided that this is how chemicals behave…but the fact is that they do and this is a perfectly natural process, no impossible odds required.
On your third point did all the students get the same answer for the age of the “known” rock?
Yes, radiometric dating despite common opinion is extremely accurate in that we will always end up with the same age from the same rock.
Like I said before the assumptions are large with this but if everyone is going with the same assumptions I can see how they would come to the same conclusions.
I’ve been through this no assumptions needed, what assumptions are you talking about that we have already not discussed and I have already not explained to you?
On your forth point about Geology are you saying that most geologist are teenagers?
No, but they do act like them
If you’ve ever worked at a University you would know that there is a bit or rivalry between departments, while those practising Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc have to spend 8 years getting a PHD to work there a Geologist only has to spend 2-3 years then can pretty much work at whatever University they want…as a result a lot tend to be very forward, rude, kind of a “I’m right, your wrong, end of story” type of people, at least in my experience.
Interesting.
Ya, meanwhile the Biology and Chemistry departments have two three story buildings for experiments where the Geology department have a single Lab and a few rooms…those who really fucked the pooch here is the Physics department which have the same 8 year PHD as Biology and Chemistry but here they only have a single hallway of offices and a blackboard for their equations.
On your sixth point there is a mechanism that prevents me from walking around the world an inch at a time, its called water. However I am sure that when you start walking that you don’t think of the limited barriers that are going to be in your pathway. I am going to argue here that you cannot call this science, its not testable, observable etc. This is no more than an assumption.
On your seventh point just because there are similarities does not mean that they got that way by an evolutionary process. Take houses for example, you know for a fact they did not evolve. Yet they all have the same characteristics because they were created. They are all similarly designed to serve a purpose, protect from the elements. Of course we cannot compare houses to biological organisms but I can detect design in organisms as I have mentioned before. Species do adapt to their environment, no question there.Yet, try to put an orchid at the north pole or a penguin in the tropical forest and you will see that they have limits. Of course that is an abrupt environmental change and not gradual but evidences suggest that changes on the earth were not always gradual. The present systems are not the key to the past as evolution suggest this is short sited and we have no proof not even in the fossil record that macro evolution exists. Oh you can imagine it if you want to but that it all it is, an over active imagination at work.
NO, it is not an assumption as we in the Biology department commonly observe mutations as well as injecting our own DNA into organisms. As far as we can tell there are no limitations to such mutations only that they can only occur in small increments per generation (i.e. you can only walk an inch at a time), indeed one of my assignments when I was going for my PHD was to construct such a protein, when I returned saying it could not be done my mentor simple smiled and said “exactly”, showing me to the sequencer, I don’t want to bore you with my life.
Unless such a protein did exist and we observed it then we cannot say it does, thus we can conclude that there are no limitations to such mutations…that’s science.
Very interesting stuff I think, I would like to see it with my own eyes of course. However even if you could prove it I don’t see how this debunks the design hypothesis at all. Do you have any videos showing this process?
I have a photo of a glow in the dark rat that we were able to recreate by splicing in some genes from a jelly fish, would you like to see that?
It doesn’t disprove the design hypothesis (note the use of the word hypothesis not theory), remember science is not about disproving anything but finding evidence for one theory or against another.
Beyond that I cannot tell what you want to see, would that be a protein that does not exist, or the process by which mutations occur, or the process by which DNA replicates itself?
Correct, changes in the Earth’s environment are not always gradual, however those that do survive are subject to what we call “the bottleneck effect” where a small population grows and diverges into many different organisms, this is why we end up with such diversity because to fill each ecological niche organisms don’t always adapt in the same way.
For example while some animals such as Sauropods grew large in order to eat from trees and avoid predators some organisms simply scaled the trees, staying small enough so that predators found them difficult to see and catch…here we have two examples of the same niche being filled in different ways.
No, evolution is not imagination, only an extrapolation of what we know and have observed, for example all cattle descended from a common ancestor, however that ancestor is now extinct, there are paintings, sculptures and even remains of this animal so we know it existed yet not all cattle can interbreed, they are different species…well we can see that the original cattle species is actually very similar to another animal in the area the only difference being size and bulk, so they must be related, they cannot interbreed but we know that variation can and does transcend such barriers so we can trace it back further…and so on
Ok look at this “Sauropods grew large in order to eat from trees and avoid predators” I would like to grow a little taller in fact I think my grandpa did as well as his grandfather and his grandfathers grand father. The grandfather before him wanted to fly why the heck are we only 6 foot tall no wings and half bald?
Well you can use the word “extrapolation” if it makes you feel better about believing in evolution and if I believed in it, I would probably prefer that word too. The fact of the matter is that there is not one piece of observable testable science and not one transitional form that you can point to as evidence for this theory. The only evidence for it is a good imagination. All of these creatures and processes are the work of intelligence not blind chance. Even if the ever changing theory of evolution were remotely true, [which it is not and that is why it keeps changing] there are endless processes that point to something more than natural. Evolution is a presumptions theory filled with holes.
I am aware of different breeds I use to live on a farm. We bred a lot of things horses, dogs, cats, cows, etc So I can see how we can get changes within species. No argument from me there. You say that evolution has no mechanisms for stopping mutations and changes but of the thousands of births that I have been a witness too I have never seen what you are describing is possible. I have witnessed deformed cows, chickens and we even had a cat that was deformed but they all usually die quickly.
Simple, were the women in your family or indeed the men in your family only breeding with particularly tall men or were only tall men in your community living to an old enough age to reproduce in have offspring…if either is correct than I would be legitimately surprised if you were not abnormally tall.
No transitional forms, perhaps you mean there are some missing, if so for humans which one is missing Homo Floresiensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Africanus, Homo Australius, Australophithecus Afarensis, Australophithecus Floresiensis or Apidium (the last not being such an intimating name), there are thousands and thousands of transitional forms, in fact most of the fossil record is composed of transitional forms, indeed if you know how natural selection works every single organism that ever existed is in fact a transitional form.
If evolution is filled with holes then tell someone what the holes are, evolution is actually one of the most solid theories in science, denying the evidence does not change reality.
Yes, sometimes mutations do cause what is known as “retardation” in most animal, plant and fungal species, however more often than not mutations do not cause retardation. However like I said there is no mechanism for stopping mutations, this is why we see speciesiation in fast breeding organisms (primarily those that reproduce sexually…so bacterial speciesation is rare), examples of this are camels, some bacteria, flies, cats and dogs (remember a species is only something that can interbreed).
What you are calling transitional forms I am calling extinct species. If they had left offspring or not does not matter. We see many animals in the fossil record that we can recognize today and many that we don’t. There is no basis for time there in the fossil record. Take for instance the first layer of fossils all are there in their complete form evidence that these systems were in place and working all together in every way shape and form. Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. Now this is only a problem for the proponents for evolution. Think about it creatures appearing totally in complete form. This view was influenced by the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which Eldredge and Gould developed in the early 1970s and which views evolution as long intervals of near-stasis “punctuated” by short periods of rapid change. Well well since the theory cannot be wrong it is defined once again, lol.
How can you expect someone to believe in a theory that is constantly changing. Science is changing and what we are learning is changing and matches your definition of evolution. If we find out we are wrong we change the way we think about it based on the evidence and more on. Our understanding of something can be very wrong hence the term “Theory”. You say you don’t like my definition of the “Whale”. Well I don’t like the definition of “Evolution”, no doubt there are changes in things over time, we can see that with dogs, cats, horses etc. However I don’t think that I am being shortsighted here by saying that inch by inch a horse can become a whale etc. The story that evolution effects some animals but leaves others alone is nuts. Alligators and Crocodiles, Coelacanth, Cycads, Dragonflies, Horshoe Crab, Ginkgo Tree etc. We find in these fossil records that you are talking about with little or no change. This wild story that it only changes the ones it sees a need to change is indeed remarkable.
again there is no mechanism yet discovered that could limit mutations within an organism, if such a protein did exist it would either stop all mutations (seemingly killing any developing zygote) which would mean that any organism which passed on such a protein would not be able to produce any live young or with every “normal” mutation a protein would have to be refitted accordingly…the only way I can see to do that would to include two strands of DNA, one as a reference to prevent mutation in the second used for reproduction and protein synthesis.
Both would mean no variation within species and no specisiation which have been observed and documented and the more likely (first configuration mentioned) would kill every single zygote (fertilised egg) that an organism produced.
sorry, posted this somewhere else, trying to keep everything clean so as not to be confusing
again there is no mechanism yet discovered that could limit mutations within an organism, if such a protein did exist it would either stop all mutations (seemingly killing any developing zygote) which would mean that any organism which passed on such a protein would not be able to produce any live young or with every “normal” mutation a protein would have to be refitted accordingly…the only way I can see to do that would to include two strands of DNA, one as a reference to prevent mutation in the second used for reproduction and protein synthesis.
Both would mean no variation within species and no specisiation which have been observed and documented and the more likely (first configuration mentioned) would kill every single zygote (fertilised egg) that an organism produced
Its not a protein its a designer that’s why you see it. There are limits and this is what we see and observe every day. This disguising evolution in the eons of time is just fascinating to me. I think that the claims of evolution would take a lot longer than what even they allow themselves to believe with the measurements they have taken to measure time. I think that is why they are now inventing the theory multi-verse “theory” notice I did not use the word “hypothesis”. Either way you slice the cheese {look at the situation} You can see the “holes” that I have discussed earlier. This is NOT a sound theory and takes more imagination than facts. Just because you can manipulate organisms in biology does not mean that happens in nature. You got people believing that aliens came down manipulated the DNA etc and that is how people came to be. This work I believe is useful but I call it “science”, not evolution.
no, that’s not what we observe, what we observe is mutations building up until eventually they can no longer breed easily (such as the case of the Great Dane and smaller dogs, or different species of cattle), clearly you have no idea how long 3.8 billion years is.
Scientists including myself do not believe, to believe required faith, evolution and radiometric dating require no faith we say we “believe” because that is the common term but the only reason we “believe” is because the evidence demands it.
Correct, because the math and physics support the idea (i.e. the evidence supports the idea) it is classed as a theory, a hypothesis is an initial idea with no supporting evidence.
No self respecting scientist would fall for that alien crap, I’m pretty sure your making that up, evolution does not require any direct intervention only mutation, natural selection and time. It happens to be one of the most sound and tested theories in science because it requires little if any imagination, it requires only testable evidence which we have and the only thing it requires in participially religious areas is a lack of Dogmatic Zealots supporting old fables despite all evidence to the opposite.
Greedy, -There are scientist that do believe. Also about the Aliens I am saying that there are people out there now hypothesizing about alien life coming to planet earth etc. This is a fact I am not making it up, its everywhere. What they are concluding is that these ones started life because they only believe in natural causes so the aliens had to be evolved naturally somehow so they made us. Ok I am not saying this is what I believe obviously but this is what they believe. Call it crap if you want to but naturalistic explanations are far fetched as well. I think its funny that you can say that everything has a natural explanation and then every once in a while you say I have a good argument for god, lol.
Yes, I have heard of that, however it tends to be in the form of single cells hitching a ride on comets, surviving the vacume of space, surviving re-entry and repopulating this planet which would be completely alien to these organisms filled with compounds that may not occur on their home planet. However until evidence exists to support such an idea it is only a hypothesis.
I never said there was a natural explanation for everything, you are confusing Agnosticism for Naturalistic-Atheism, I can only go by data that is available and will not comment on otherwise, Naturalistic-Atheism is the continuation of a natural curve where we are constantly finding natural explanations for what was originally thought to be magic and therefore the Philosophy argues that there must be a natural explanation for everything.
While I cannot comment on data that is no available I will humour your “God of the gaps” approach to Biology and Physics, even though I find that overly optimistic myself.
okay so anything I put as a reply to
“On your sixth point there is a mechanism that prevents me from walking around the world an inch at a time, its called water. However I am sure that when you start walking that you don’t think of the limited barriers that are going to be in your pathway. I am going to argue here that you cannot call this science, its not testable, observable etc. This is no more than an assumption.”
ends up here…okay, fuck
LOL
On your eighth point you have the assumption that I accept evolution, I don’t and neither do I see any evidence that Micro-raptor was an ancestor to a creature that changed into something else.
Oh dear, here we go again, it’s the whale incident all over again, all though again for interest could you tell me one feature that a bird has that any dinosaur did not?
No, I did not assume you accepted evolution, previous evidence indicated the opposite, I was only making a point that we cannot reject a fossil based on it’s age.
Well I don’t see it like you do as far as classification. You are looking at it from an evolutionary point of view and I don’t. Birds and Dinosaurs, Monkeys and Apes, Fish and Dolphins they all share similarities and differences. Some differences between birds and dinosaurs are dinosaurs are cold-blooded reptiles, and they have scales as an outer covering, while birds are warm-blooded, and have feathers as an outer covering.
Point taken.
There is legitimately no way of telling if a Dinosaur was cold blooded, some like the famous Spinosaurs showed what is accepted to be a transition between worm and cold blood in being able to control it’s body temperature, beyond that no dinosaur is actually classed as a reptile, they are kind of a half bird- half reptile, they have a bird neck, hip, shoulder, skull, rib, legs, spinal structure but a reptilian tail and teeth.
And no, as far as we can tell most if not all ”Theropod” dinosaurs (those with a bird hip and neck) had feathers covering their body to some degree, indeed the only group of dinosaurs which we KNOW had scales at all is the”Ornithischan” (those with a bird hip a beak and specialised teeth) due their habitat being either marshland or so wide spread that fossils of skin have been found.
Oh yes, sorry, sometimes I forget some people don’t have a great understanding of Biology or Taxonomy, I should probably elaborate on the Taxonomic terms I mentioned;
Theropod: examples are raptors, tyrannosaurs, therizinosaurs, Alosaurs etc commonly known as “predatory” dinosaurs though this name is misleading as there were many non-Theropod dinosaurs that were predators (though they are mainly limited to the late Triassic where the distinction between crocodiles and dinosaurs is not particularly clear)
Ornithischan: examples are (not as broad a group as Theropod so I will only be naming spicific species) Iguanadon, Anatotitan, Mutabarasaurs, Commonly known as “duck-billed” dinosaurs however the group covers Iguanadon and Mutabrasaurs which do not have flattened beaks
On your ninth point I think the predictions are hilarious. When you make a million predictions and get a few right I don’t call that good science. Or making predictions like, according to evolution we will find a dinosaur in Africa. duh? Instead of adjusting the evolution theory again and again why don’t you just do science? I can say that science is a learning precess filled with mistakes and accomplishments but evolution is proclaiming something far much greater. It is claiming to explain the source for all life and its existence. I think I have a right to challenge it, question it, test it and if it does not pass the test then do my best to destroy it. Its not science its a religious philosophy that people dogmatically defend.
No, but when you make a million predictions and get all right then it’s good science
Finding a Dinosaur in Africa…I think your referring to “we should find no Dinosaurs in Africa before 245 million years ago” and we have not.
Evolution does not explain the source of life, that’s Abiogenesis which is Biochemistry…which is Chemistry essentially. Evolution only explains the diversity of life found on Earth today.
Other than that, you are correct, if a theory does not account for evidence then you should “destroy it” though the scientific community would normally debunk it or discredit instead. However evolution has stood up to testing, questioning and all challenges, the only places where the main populous do not accept such findings have deep religious views to the opposite, this is called being “Dogmatic” as I explained before.
Well I think your statement there about religious faith is unfounded. Look at William Lane Craig, {one of my hero’s} does not at all deny evolution and I would say that he is more religious than most. In fact when he is asked about a scientific question he will give an evolutionary response.
Do you really mean to tell me that evolution is right 100% of the time? That seems to be what you are suggesting here and I have a few things to say about that. In science, one of the most important things a hypothesis can do is make predictions that can be verified by experiment or observation. If a hypothesis makes predictions that are then confirmed by experiment or observation, its scientific value is high. The more confirmed predictions it makes, the more likely it is to be a good, scientific explanation for whatever phenomenon it is describing. However, if a hypothesis makes several predictions that are shown to by false by experiment or observation, its scientific value becomes questionable.
Dr. Cornelius Hunter has done an excellent job detailing many of evolution’s failed predictions. website Not surprisingly, as more and more research is being done, more and more evolutionary predictions are being falsified. The latest one involves bats and insects.
As most people know, bats have an amazing echolocation system that allows them to hunt in the dark. They send out high-frequency sound waves that bounce off anything in front of them. They receive the reflected sound waves, analyze them with sophisticated mathematics, and determine all sorts of useful information, such as the size, position, and speed of what’s in front of them. This amazing echolocation system allows bats to hunt and eat insects even when it is pitch black outside.
Well, it turns out that some insects are able to hear these high-frequency sound waves. This alerts them to the fact that a bat is hunting them, and they are then able to take evasive maneuvers. For many, many years, evolutionists have claimed that this kind of hearing in insects evolved after bats evolved. For example, a book that discusses the echolocation systems found in bats and dolphins says:1
The evolution of ultrasound sensitivity in nocturnal insects evolved in response to predation pressures exerted by echolocating bats.
Another evolutionary book makes a very similar statement:2
…before bats evolved…moths and other nocturnal insects owned the night sky, flitting about unmolested by predators. The appearance of bats forced them to evolve a novel antibat strategy – a way of hearing the echolocating calls of hunting bats, in effect a radar detector.
So evolution predicts that the high-frequency hearing in some insects arose after bats evolved, as a response to the bats’ new way of finding prey among the insects.
Like most evolutionary predictions, however, this turns out to be dead wrong.
Dr. Roy E. Plotnick and Dr. Dena M. Smith studied well-preserved fossils of crickets and katydids from the Green River Formation found in the western United States. According to questionable evolutionary dating techniques, these fossils are supposed to be 50 million years old. This is roughly the same age that evolutionists date the first definitive bat fossils. So…assuming that these insects did evolve their ability to hear high-frequency sound waves in response to the appearance of bats, what would you expect these researchers to find when they studied the hearing organs found in those supposedly 50-million-year-old insect fossils? The hearing organs should look quite different from those of their modern counterparts, right? After all, the insects wouldn’t have yet had a chance to evolve their high-frequency hearing, given that the fossils are supposed to be just as old as the earliest bat fossils.
What Drs. Plotnick and Smith actually find? Here’s how they put it:3
Here we describe and document the exceptionally well preserved tympanal ears found in crickets and katydids from the Eocene Green River Formation of Colorado, which are virtually identical to those seen in modern representatives of these groups.
In other words, the fossil evidence indicates that crickets and katydids had essentially the same hearing before and after the supposed evolution of bats. If Dr. Plotnick and Dr. Smith’s analysis is correct, then, these insects did not evolve their ability to hear high-frequency sound in response to the predation of bats. How will evolutionists explain the evolution of high-frequency hearing in some insects now? Here’s how a web article puts it:
The findings suggest that this group of insects evolved their supersensitive hearing long before bat predators came to be, the researchers say.
“Their bat-detecting abilities may have simply become apparent later,” Smith said.
That’s pretty convenient. Evolution just happened to prepare these insects for bat predators long before the bats actually evolved! What an interesting way to explain around this most recently-falsified prediction of the evolutionary hypothesis.
REFERENCES
1. Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins, Jeanette A. Thomas, Cynthia F. Moss, and Marianne Vater, ed., University of Chicago Press 2003, p 324.
Return to Text
2. Nicholas Wade, The Science Times Book of Mammals, Lyons Press 1999, p. 20
Return to Text
3. Roy E. Plotnick and Dena M. Smith, “Exceptionally Preserved Fossil Insect Ears from the Eocene Green River Formation of Colorado,” Journal of Paleontology, 86(1):19-24, 2012
first, wow…big comment, this might take a while, I will be answering paragraph to make this easier.
I never said that evolution was right 100% of the time, nothing can be other than mathematics. Other than that you are correct about scientific predictions, this is exactly why evolution is “good science” and ID is “bad science”.
The website you linked me to primarily deals predictions made by Charles Darwin, hate to ruin your fun but Darwinian evolution is mostly false, Darwin had no idea of any mechanism behind evolutionary change other than natural selection…what a surprise in 150 years of experimentation we known more about the world and adjust our theories accordingly. Other than that no, the more research is done and the more experiments are conducted the more credit evolution has as it’s predictions about placement of organisms is confirmed.
That’s a very watered down system of how echolocation works, but to be perfectly honest I am impressed with the definition regardless.
That’s technically not true, insects are able to pick up vibrations, they are not able to distinguish between a bat or any other vibration such as a large organism approaching, all the insects know is that something is coming, that something may/ may not be a bat but it is best to avoid it anyway.
yes that is true, however that is not a scientific journal no Biologist would make such a prediction without confirming evidence…say finding insects unable to sense air vibrations at all.
no, most evolutionary predictions are correct, especially considering order…this is an anomaly but as I said before no Biologist would make such a prediction without evidence to support the idea.
no, that’s not what we would expect at all if you know even the slightest thing about insect anatomy, insects tend not to change much thus hearing organs would be almost exactly the same as those of modern organisms.
I have yet to read the rest of your response but I would assume that Dr.Polnick would find insect anatomy changed very little in 50 million years.
As I and anyone else with even the slightest knowledge of insect hearing or anatomy would have predicted.
Remember that an invertebrates world is much different to ours, high frequency hearing in beetles, crickets, etc is the normality not the abnormality due to the way their “ears” function, simple detectors designed to pick up vibration in general, high frequency vibration is actually surprisingly easy to pick up…we just can’t because of our more complex mammalian ears.
yes it is convenient a system was able to be used in ways it was never intended…where else to we see this? How about hollow bones in dinosaurs, used to save weight becoming perfect for the light flying structure of modern birds, remember evolution does not have an “end plan” so systems being useful in new situations is nothing new.
January 31 2012 – GreedyCapybara7 said:
“first, wow…big comment, this might take a while, I will be answering paragraph to make this easier.”
CS – Thanks Greedy, You seem to be what you say you are and I ask that you take this from a layperson wanting to learn.
Could we say – “Nature provides mutations from which natural processes winnow.” ?
I want to learn and be able to speak about evolution in a simple way.
Trying to get around using the words “good” mutations, “bad”, nature “choosing”, etc. Searching for a meme to replace “design” and “chance”, “survival of the fittest” and “nature red in tooth and claw”. thanks.
To Max – There was no “reply” button on Greedy’s message as there are on all of yours. fyi.
To Calvin, there is no reply button on your message either, probably something to do with the properties of this particular comment.
Biologists Calvin tend to use the phrases “detrimental” or “beneficial” mutations rather than “good” and “bad”, unless consulting someone who has absolutely no idea of how natural selection works so one must assign human characteristics to the process.
But we still use phrases such as design, it’s called personification where human characteristics are assigned to non-human processes or objects in order to make it easier to explain, however few academics use the terms “survival of the fittest” and “nature red in tooth and claw” because that implies that evolution is an upgrading process; which it is not…more accurately evolution is the compounding of beneficial mutations that increase an organisms chances of reproduction, this does not always mean faster, better and stronger much to the opposite as an organism that lives to an old age would produce unhealthy offspring and is simply a drain on the species (with the obvious exception of most plants and the “immortal jellyfish).
This however I don’t understand, could you rephrase the question for me:
“Nature provides mutations from which natural processes winnow?”
Beyond that why are you on this message boards? I was dragged here because of a chap on Youtube (who owns this particular message board), how/ why are you here?
Funny how we have to reinvent the English language to explain evolution don’t you think? We have to use techniques like “personification” to describe “natural selection” to laymen. I think its funny how they have their own linguistic system. Its almost a mystery in itself, lol. I know that when you enter a court room all the lawyers and judges have their linguistics and use the “personification” techniques as well. I think creationist and ID scientist need to start using personification too so that evolutionist can understand them, maybe that has been our mistake after all.
Max – Funny how we have to reinvent the English language to explain evolution don’t you think?
cs – No, I don’t think it is funny or true.
Max -We have to use techniques like “personification” to describe “natural selection” to laymen. I think its funny how they have their own linguistic system. Its almost a mystery in itself, lol.
cs – You laugh talking about serious subjects. Makes me wonder.
Max – I know that when you enter a court room all the lawyers and judges have their linguistics and use the “personification” techniques as well. I think creationist and ID scientist need to start using personification too so that evolutionist can understand them, maybe that has been our mistake after all.
cs – “creationist and ID” ‘ists have -always – used personification. Calling the natural world “God.” That is why I was asking G about rephrasing without personification. thanks
Here you go Calvin, it might do you well to invest in a dictionary. You can see that there are many uses for the word “funny”. Just because you think that I link it to being humorous is one of your many fallacies in these blog comments.
It seems you have a problem understand the word personification too here is the meaning. Remember Greedy and I were using it to explain evolutionary terms and I was implying that ID and creationist should do the same to help people understand their terms. ID and creationist tend to be straight forward about what they are talking about, evolutionist have to use more personification terms because what they are believing is non existent in a laymen terms. For instance they prescribe intelligence when it comes to evolution because they imply that evolution chooses a beneficial mutation by saying stuff like, evolution is seeing the need to…. My argument is either way you slice the cheese you are prescribing intelligence to evolution.
To Max
We never reinvented the English Lagrange, the fact that a word may have two or more meanings based on the context seems alien to you, so I will use an everyday example.
“That Girl is very HOT” (hot being the word in question)
do I mean
a) that girl has a very high temperature
or
b) that girl is very attractive
Personification is a very old technique used throughout poetry and writings over the ages, examples are metaphors and smilies.
That is not the problem with ID he problem with ID is a complete lack of any testable evidence from any source and because it is based on religion despite all evidence to the country patriots of ID (i.e. yourself) repeat the same points over and over again despite the fact that they have been proven wrong already in the same discussion.
To GreedyCapybara7 – My thoughts are closer to yours than to Max. Not to say I agree 100% The phrase I offered about -not- using personification was because I knew many people around me (Southern US) will use any argument to fight against evolution while offering no evidence for their position. peace
Personification is what we use when we are speaking to someone who is trying to identify with the subject but its not in their vocabulary. Of course this was my favorite meaning of the word personification because it reminded me of you explaining evolution to me. Personification: an imaginary person or creature conceived or figured to represent a thing or abstraction. LOL!
What do you think ID has been proven wrong on? This is where you are very unclear. Who cares if something is based on religion that does not mean a hill of beans if it is right or wrong. Testing the evidence does not always give you the truth and the methods for testing the evidence is laughable when it comes to evolution. ID and Creationist do science just like you do but they recognize a designer from the designed. I don’t see where that makes you true and them false. I think that you need to understand here that the methods use in carrying out science are the same. These are not foolish men and women as you suppose, their results and accomplishments are many. They are not testing for a designer they already know he is there because of his handy work. If you do not wish to see it that way then that is not the issue here. The issue here is that you have to prove that everything was produced though an evolutionary natural system and you cant do it. The reason why you cant do it is because there are supernatural explanations. That is not a problem for Creationist and ID proponents therefore their ability to move on is greater and they have a greater reason for doing so as well.
Max – Personification is what we use ….
[snip] The reason why you cant do it is because there are supernatural explanations.[snip]
cs – These supernatural explanations are?
Supernatural Explanation include but are not limited to: the origins of the universe, Time, Space, Matter. the origins of life, conscience-Objective Moral Values, Paranormal events that defy nature, evps, apparitions, psychics: even though they have never been too a place that can walk in and tell you about events that happened in the area. There are many more but these are a few.
To Max,
Indeed that’s pretty much personification in a nutshell, it tends to be used to explain higher concepts to the uneducated or even the general masses as it contains features that they can identify with.
I didn’t say ID was false because it is based on religion I said ID was based on religion and false.
But beyond that no, ID scientists don’t do any experiments, and do very limited and bad research. No articles from the Discovery Institute (the hub of ID) have ever been approved in peer review as they are mainly opinionated articles with no experiments or research.
Number of accomplishments by evolution (based on papers written on the subject and it’s “real world” applications): 24,000+ paper(s)
Number of accomplishments of ID: (based on papers written on the subject and it’s “real world” applications):0 paper(s)
There is a very clear difference between ID and Evolution, Evolution is a Theory which is an idea supported by all facts and refuted by none, where as ID is a Hypothesis which is an initial idea with no supporting facts.
Again, proof beyond mathematics is impossible, but as far as we can tell everything in Biology is natural in origin, it’s all Biochemistry and Physics no magic required!
Although I do find this quote from you slightly amusing.
“Creationist and ID proponents therefore their ability to move on is greater and they have a greater reason for doing so as well.”
Clinging to 2,000+ year old documents and ancient ideas despite all evidence to the opposite is not moving on in any respect of the word.
Are you lying?
Your message claims:
You obviously never heard of Michael Behe he is in your line of work. He is one of many.
FYI we embrace the evidence that’s what makes us believe and always has.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKeAFWC5Qsg
No, I’m not lying. The fact is that the Discovery Institute and most ID “scientists” don’t do any research at all.
Partly due to a lack of funding, because ID has no applications and the “science” simply does not work with modern Genetics and Biology one cannot obtain applications that can supply funding for the organisation, therefore they rely on donations from…well people like you, who want evidence to prove them right…so far, nothing, 0, absolutely no confirmed experiments, absolutely no peer reviewed articles and no return of any donations.
And no, you don’t embrace evidence unless it confirms what you already think to be reality even if it’s not true. Science (i.e. Evolution) however takes into account ALL evidence weather it confirms what we think we know or not, so far there has been nothing to even discredit Evolution as a theory.
I embrace all the evidence some of it is just misleading is all. I would like to know where you got your information about ID scientist not doing and research. I have seen them doing research and experiments in the field and in the lab. What are you talking about?
Who cares if I help fund people who are doing real unbiased science? I think its important to get to the truth not support an agenda. If I believe in God what evidence am I going to try to hide? That’s just silly and unfounded! In fact that makes me even more impartial than someone like you supporting evolution. You have an agenda, to me I can just see and observe the creation without having to stick to any theory. If anyone is impartial it is the ID and creation science. Faith that God created something is not going to make to fudge or destroy evidence like the evolutionist have done and YES THIS IS DOCUMENTED FACTS THAT EVOLUTIONIST HAVE LIED FUDGED FOR THE PROMOTION OF THEIR THEORY Show me just one incident where a creationist or an ID scientists have done this, I am not aware of any!
Max – “Show me just one incident where a creationist or an ID scientists have done this, I am not aware of any!”
Search for Dover v. Kitzmiller – “After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. “Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions,” Judge Jones wrote. “The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony.” An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the “unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed””
cs – Bonsell and Buckingham were the “Christian” defendants.
A lot of people have said that Buckingham and Bonsell should have been prosecuted for perjury or that they were lucky to escape perjury charges. However, to me, the reasons why they were not prosecuted for perjury are clear:
(1) Their alleged lies could not have affected the outcome in the case.
(2) Some of the alleged “lies” were not lies but were just minimal answers.
(3) Some of the questions were ambiguous.
(4) Immunity to a charge of perjury is usually granted when the whole true story is told.
(5) The question of where the money for the books came from was irrelevant because there was no tax money involved.
(6) Perjury charges would have made martyrs of them in the minds of a lot of people.
Anyway, Buckingham and Bonsell were not the only people here who were not completely honest. The Dover High School science teachers, by refusing to read the ID statement, reneged on their agreement to accept “Of Pandas and People” as a reference text in exchange for the school board’s acceptance of a heavily pro-Darwinist main biology text. The newly elected school board members reneged on their campaign promises by not repealing the ID policy immediately. Judge Jones was dishonest when he pretended to be impartial and then said in a commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not “true” religions. Judge Jones lied when he said through a spokesperson that he does not publicly comment on the specifics of the case. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Also, IMO calling Buckingham a “hostile witness” sounds disparaging, like he testified while wearing an electric stun belt or a straitjacket. All the term really means here is that the opposing side got to question him first. The term sounds derogatory and its use ought to be discontinued.
Anyway, I think that Buckingham and Bonsell came across pretty well in PBS NOVA’s “Judgment Day.”
Max – A lot of people have said that Buckingham and Bonsell.
CS – So, you -have- heard of a creationist lying.
Max – Anyway, Buckingham and Bonsell were not the only people here who were not completely honest.
CS – You agree they were lying. They are the ones professing to be Christians.
cs – Hostile witness, technically an “adverse witness” is not a disparaging remark. It is a description of the relationship of the witness with the attorney who called the witness.
Max – Anyway, I think that Buckingham and Bonsell came across pretty well in PBS NOVA’s “Judgment Day.”
CS – From reading the transcript of the trial I think they are liars. liars for Jesus. Sad.
oops, I meant to say:
“don’t do any experiments at all” not “don’t do any research at all”
Max: those aren’t supernatural explanations those are events and processes with both a natural explanation which is tested and has evidence to support it and a supernatural explication with no evidence other than people asserting “magic did it”.
The answers to these questions are not simple, in fact often they require thousands of years of human innovation and science in order to answer, however jumping to conclusions and saying that it was magic does not help people in anyway. Yes you have an answer to some things Science does not (God did it) and a answer to things that Science already has an answer to. However in neither of these cases do you have any testable evidence for these claims and ignore any evidence to the opposite because you already think you are right and any evidence against a particular claim will result in eternal torture. This is why you don’t listen to me and ask for evidence over and over again after I have already provided ample evidence for my one and only original claim as well as other tangents that you have gone off on in order to diverge the conversation.
No, Creationism and ID use over simplistic explanations for things that people observe daily and ignore everything that is slightly rare and contradicts their notions. Because of this they results are simplistic requiring little work for even the most uneducated individual to understand. However Science has long left that realm of over simplistic conclusions as the Universe is not a simple place in fact it is incredibly complex…however science still has to explain these concepts to every day people, this is where these linguistic concepts (originally devised to share complex philosophy) come in, because be honest, do you really think that your average man off the street can explain an Atom without tripping over his own tongue or using analogies to planets etc.
On the tenth point here is the evidence I would expect to see if evolution were true is all regards where it claims.
I have hundreds of more reasons but I don’t want to ramble.
1. of course we do, when an animal is able to adapt to it’s environment without change then no change is needed, you don’t seem to know how natural selection works.
2.why? as species can fill the “rolls” of more than one and do it more efficiently then one species can replace two…I don’t see a problem there
3.again, you clearly don’t know what a transitional form is, we are all transitional forms, every single thing on the planet is a transitional form from the previous generation to the next.
4.explain?
5.we don’t remember despite odds commonly given out by ID supporters the order in which a chemical changes state is not random nor is much else but is dependent on the environment.
6.no, no it doesn’t you again clearly have no idea how mutations work, it’s small variations over a long period of time, not large changes then small fine tuning
7.again, the formation of chemicals is not random, but driven by the electro-magnetic force, but remember life probably didn’t start with a cell, but probably with simple RNA that could replicate itself, thus natural selection would take hold before a cell could even form.
8.explain?
1. Well lets get the meaning out of the way first shall we? natural selection:noun
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.
Now if this is an acceptable definition to you I think that we can move on. I would like to sum it all up in one word “BULL SHIT” but of course that is not very scientific is it? I find that this is a typical response every time I bring the subject up that we have modern animals in the fossil record. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what “natural selection” is suggesting here but when I bring up a fact against it then I don’t understand? Maybe it is a flawed theory? Well of course we cannot entertain those types of falsifications because um well… I don’t really know why you would want to hold onto a theory and call it science. Reminds me of the flat earthers! lol
2. Well as I have told you that I lived on a farm. We bred all kinds of animals and each one came out resembling the parents. Now we all know how dog breeding works but we always get a dog no mater how many times we breed them. Evolution is suggesting that one species has a “common ancestor” this common ancestor is an ancestor to many “species” therefore we should see an increase in species not a decrease. This is real simple I can believe that it is not grasped by you.
3. I could not help but laugh on that one. I guess if you believe in evolution you would have to believe that you are a transitional form. Yet this does argue against the point that I made about the Alligators, Crocs, etc.
4. “Genetic entropy” is a scientific fact which is admitted by all prominent geneticists. Genetic entropy is the natural deterioration of DNA via mutations which are caused by various types of errors; such as errors in copying a chromosome. Dr. Sanford, for example, stated that DNA is deteriorating at an alarming rate.
If evolution were true, our human DNA, and the DNA of all other living species on this earth, could trace their genealogy back to the “first living cell” and thus all DNA on earth would contain 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects because there would have been 660 million years of accumulating and continuous genetic entropy.
Why would we see these mutations on our DNA? The reason is that there is no mechanism on any DNA to fix most type of genetic errors.
The genetic defects would have accumulated from generation to generation and from species to species. It is ludicrous that any animal could survive 1 million years of continuous genetic entropy, but to survive for 660 million years of continuous genetic entropy is simply far beyond ludicrous.
Human DNA is too perfect to have been exposed to 660 million years of genetic entropy. If George and Mary (evolution’s equivalent to Adam and Eve) existed 100,000 years ago, they would have had 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects (e.g. genetic entropy).
Furthermore, if George and Mary had lived 100,000 years ago, our human DNA would have an additional 100,000 years of genetic entropy, on top of the 660 million years of George and Mary’s genetic entropy.
If the theory of evolution were true, and all of our ancestors and ancestor species only had 1 mutation every year on average, we humans would have 660,100,000 random defective mutations on our DNA due to genetic entropy. No species could survive with this massive amount of defects in their DNA.
If evolution were true, 22% of our DNA would be defective. This means 22% of our gene complexes, 22% of our morphing of the embryo algorithms, etc. would be defective. But there is very little tolerance in many aspects of our DNA, so humans could not exist even if our DNA was 0.1% randomly defective.
But in reality our ancestors would have had far more than 1 mutation per year on average and the 22% would be far, far above 100%.
Furthermore, if a significant set of additional genetic defects would have occurred in a descendant of George and Mary, say 90,000 years ago, this defect would be seen in a very, very high percentage of humans today. But no such broad genetic defect has been observed.
Science claims that DNA has improved by random mutations of nucleotides. This theory is in direct opposition to discoveries in genetics. DNA deteriorates, not progresses, over time. This is a scientific fact. Given the mathematical problems of the theory of evolution, detrimental mutations caused by genetic entropy would have occurred millions of times faster than favorable mutations. It would be like trying to swim upstream of a 5,000 foot tall waterfall.
The vast majority of mutations are neutral or detrimental in all species. Yet the entire theory of neo-Darwinism is that DNA improves over time; that new genetic information is constantly being formed; and that more complex DNA is constantly being developed by random mutations of DNA. There is no scientific evidence for any of these claims.
But the main point of this section is that because genetic entropy is a scientific fact, and if evolution were true, we humans could not exist because our DNA would have the accumulated mutations of 660 million years of genetic entropy.
But the fact is that no complex species can exist for more than a million years due to genetic entropy.
Bottom Line: If evolution were true; because of genetic entropy; humans could not exist. Furthermore, our DNA is far too perfect to contain 660 million years of accumulated genetic defects.
5. Evolution could not have occurred in a billion years or even a trillion years or even a quintillion quintillion years. The reason is that human DNA would have required “winning” 3,000 consecutive or sequential evolution lotteries, each with an impossible probability of 10‑100.
6. Thats not what Punctuated equilibrium states!
7. The “first living cell” was not descended from existing life, by definition. Thus, its RNA or DNA had to consist of totally and absolutely random permutations of nucleotides.
While “evolutionists” claim that existing DNA was easy to modify into new genetic material and new species, they have no basis for such a claim for the “first living cell.”
The probability that a purely random permutation of nucleotides will create life, even if it is carefully put inside of a cell membrane, was calculated to be 10‑1,500. This is an insane probability. It is like picking the correct, single atom from among 101,480 Universes!!
And even this probability ignores a lot of things, such as having the correct combination of genes, the chemical binding problems of amino acids, various paradoxes, the formation of the cell membrane of the “first living cell,” etc.
If any scientist claims they have created life from non-life, using a randomly generated permutation of nucleotides, you know they have committed pure fraud. If billions of attempts were made; every second for a hundred billion years; it is still a case of fraud.
But scientists still have not created life from non-life using the luxury of carefully designing DNA (i.e. stealing ideas from DNA created by God) for a “first living cell.”
8. Scientists know virtually nothing about the morphing of the embryo algorithms on human DNA. This is because the algorithms are so complex, humans cannot comprehend them.
The morphing of the embryo algorithms, which are really in-comprehensively complex computer programs which are coded on DNA, are so accurate and so intolerant of mutations, that no complex species (i.e. a male and female), or its descendent species, could survive for 1 million years due to just genetic entropy of these algorithms, much less genetic chaos.
In other words, the morphing of the embryo algorithm is so sensitive to errors that it would be quickly destroyed by the smallest amount of mutations caused by genetic entropy and/or genetic chaos.
While some aspects of DNA may have a little tolerance for error, the morphing of the embryo is not one of them.
No one knows how many nucleotides are involved in the morphing of the embryo algorithms in an advanced species, but it surely numbers in the millions of nucleotides. One or two defects in this mechanism, via genetic entropy, genetic debris or genetic chaos (obviously in the germ cells) and there will not be any surviving offspring or new species.
The issue this algorithm creates for evolution is that it makes any type of mutation to be far more damaging, far more quickly, than a person might thing.
There is no mechanism to protect these nucleotides from mutation, since they are obviously scattered throughout the DNA.
References
1.good boy, now if an organism is subject to such pressures but is already suited to its environment then any mutations changing the efficiency or any feature of the organism would be detrimental and thus unlikely to be passed on.
But yes you’ll end up with the same answer, because it’s a dumb question: here is a typical scientists response to such a question…don’t think I could have put it better myself:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975
2.not really, species out compete each-other and thus species go instinct, but to be perfectly honest we did just come out of an ice age (mass extinction) and the rate humans are killing off animal and plant species then I’m not surprised if your referring to a modern decline in species.
If not then I can tell you that the total number of species on the planet at any given time constantly goes up and down with events such as continent drift and mass extinctions.
3.Again everything is a transitional form, but if you are looking for what is concerned as a “linear” transitional form (that is something a creationist would classify as a transition) then I will list just a few:
-Tictalic (a lob finned fish, transition between lung fish and a tetrapod)
-Seymouria (a thick skinned amphibian a transition between a tetrapod and primitive reptiles)
-Edaphosaurs, Dimetrodon or any of the other sailed backed reptiles (with the ability to control their body temperature a transition between reptiles and mammal like reptiles)
-Gorgonops (with the ability to control its internal body temperature, sent glands and a mammal hip a further transition between the sail backs and mammal like reptiles)
-Diictodon, Lystrosaurs, Placerias or any other Diictodont reptile (another transition between the Gorgonopids and mammal like reptiles)
-any Cylodont (true mammal like reptiles a transition between mammals and reptiles)
Anything else?
4.First as far as we can tell life has been on this planet for around 3.8 billion years, not 660 million
Secondly there is a mechanism for fixing “defects”, it is commonly known as natural selection, young with defects are tuned out because they do not survive long enough to reproduce.
5.no, no it would not, to get to humans as we are exactly now then the odds are far more remote, life could have gone in any direction, but the fact is that it did have to go in a direction and it happened to be this exact path…the fact is that humans exist, this is what we observe there could be any number of organisms in our place but the fact is that because each mass extinction, environmental change and random event turned out the way it did we are here.
6.really? no punctuated equilibria is only an outdated version of what we call now the “bottle neck effect”, where after a mass extinction a small group of organisms can quickly diverge to fill a wide range of ecological niches due to a lack of competition.
7.no, and if you knew anything about natural selection or even simple Biochemistry you wouldn’t say that (seriously you sound like a nice enough guy but you say the dumbest things sometimes), life probably didn’t begin with “the first living cell” it probably began with simple organic replicating molecules (RNA or DNA), which yes at first would have been completely random, and yes by random mutation alone the odds of forming a simple cellular membrane are low but because these molecules are subject to selection pressures (i.e. they decompose) the odds are greatly reduced because good mutations are kept and bad ones dis-guarded (as I discussed before).
8.we’ve already discussed this before, natural selection operates on beneficial mutations i.e. complex organisms can arise because genetic entropy is pretty much horse shit in the way you are phrasing it.
The fact is that mutations can and do occur along any stretch of any chromosome with no regulation other than killing the organism before birth…if these changes can be undetected/ small enough then this system does not work as the child is born with a slight mutation.
LOL at Greedy on just about everything you said. NO NO NO, that’s my job here! I say the dumbest things? Look at what your saying and your the one with the PHD!
“Probably Began?” Yeah because there is no other way it possibly happened? All life looks designed because it is designed. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck and act like a duck then its a duck. There your simple equation, use it!
I think its hilarious that you say life could of taken any turn but this is the one it took. Yeah just look at all the life in the universe its everywhere isn’t it?
Changing your mind is such an advantage, so sure then so unsure. lol And you want me to trust this stuff? Really?
We say “probably began” because beyond mathematics (which in a large part we have to take on faith) “proof” is impossible i.e. humans don’t “know” anything…the fact is that life can arise from organic material, organic material can arise from inorganic material and such conditions were in place on Earth 3.8 billion years ago to allow life to arise from Abiogenesis, but because “proof” is impossible outside mathematics and it’s almost impossible to apply to Biological systems until someone invents a time machine or devises a new experiment testing the theory (note the use of theory) we cannot “know”
“Design” how does one test for such a feature in Biological systems?
Beyond that I a sorry I called you stupid, I am not used to talking to people without a Year 12 education (the same as a first year collage education there in the states) for extended period of time.
Detect for design: if something follows a certain pattern or order then it is designed in any system. When we observe things that are working together in a biological system like “bacterium flagellum” made up of several different parts like a motor we can detect design.
In other words you don’t have to “test” for design no more than you would “test” the maker of the house who built it. That’s just stupid! you can test the structure to make sure its sound, you can test the electric and all the systems there in, but you have no need to test the designer.
Well that’s OK if you call me stupid, I don’t care I got enough money that comforts me every day and a very successful business and did I mention that I am a instructor as well? lol So no offense taken. Actually I am use to it although its usually from immature students or people who are dead wrong trying to prove a theory that is so far from the truth they can’t see the forest though the trees and think they are right all the time. I guess I would be a little pissed off too if I dedicated my whole life to a lie. However insults are funny because they express someone at their wits end for better or for worse.
Not detect design, test for it
The flagellum (not an organel unique to bacteria) is essentially an ion pump (a common organel used for pumping H+ ions in and out of the cell to control acidity) with a protein tail normally constructed from the same material as the cell wall (the semi-permeable membrane that surrounds the internals of a cell), that’s not design that’s what is called adaptation of a component.
You do test for the designer of a house, you can look him/her up and retrieve documented evidence or simply watch them build the house. The point however I think you are trying to get across is that some things are designed and built…therefore everything must be. That may/may not be true, but the fact is that without testable evidence for these claims then such statements are simply wishful guesswork.
“Actually I am use to it although its usually from immature students or people who are dead wrong trying to prove a theory that is so far from the truth they can’t see the forest though the trees and think they are right all the time. I guess I would be a little pissed off too if I dedicated my whole life to a lie. However insults are funny because they express someone at their wits end for better or for worse”
Lets just say I know the feeling and leave it at that
Well I think you missed my point here about testing for a design. The only thing that comes close to that is ID. You have admitted yourself there is no way to test for the designer therefore you are just going to conclude that he does not exist. That’s just silly.
I think looking up the designer for the house and the designer for the universe would be a little different. However we can see inscriptions everywhere throughout history and we can actually look up the designer, I even have his phone number. Its a free call even from Australia!
The point is you can test all the evidence that you want to test, even in a house you are only going to see characteristics of the designer but you will never be able to prove that house was built using the methods that you are implying to reach truth. In face why don’t you tell me how we can use your scientific methods to prove that a house was build and did not evolve and I will play the part of the evolutionist here. Come on it will be fun!
oops, I meant to say “cell membrane” not “cell wall”
I never concluded that a designer does not exist, however with a lack of evidence pointing to any designer at all one cannot say one does exist (this is called being Agnostic where you cannot say something does exist because of a lack of evidence but because one cannot test for it you cannot rule it out either).
Yes, looking up a designer for the universe and the designer of a house are completely different, now because there is no known natural force that can create a house then it must be artificial (or at least classed as such until such a natural force is observed and studied) however that is not the case with just about everything in the universe which has natural forces that are responsible for it’s formation and progress, all a designer would have to do is set the four forces (gravitational, strong, weak and electro-magnetic forces) to the correct values. Thus would have no part in the formation of anything in the Universe at all only in the construction of the four forces.
Although I am curious about this designers “number” I don’t speak metaphor outside academic arguments so if your not referring to your particular interpretation of the Bible then please let me know.
I see what your doing here but I’ll play along anyway.
1.no natural force is known that can shape a house from raw material (not discounting that such a force may actually exist but simply not be observed as of yet)
2.there are instances of direct intervention in the creation of other houses that are observed.
3.said product is shows no randomness and materials converted in such a way to which they could not have formed this way naturally under any knowledge known.
4.designer is observed and documented.
Peer Review:
For individual journals you are correct, however as any experiences scientist will tell you (I most certainly am not an experienced scientist), there is a way around that by submitting you article to many journals you limit the chances of it being rejected based on your credentials and in my case because I work with my head of department I simply put her name on the paper as well as my own and few will turn it down based on credentials or target audience.
Beyond that the peer review process primarily consists of sightations (roughly indicating how good your article is), comments (corrections or variables that need to be addressed) and conformation (people trying your experiment for themselves and comparing results).
So the more funding you have the more you will be likely to be in peer review journals? What does that have to do with truth?
no, nothing to do with funding, I never mentioned funding, did you hear me mention funding?
only that articles with greater credentials are looked at and considered more carefully in a private company, however there are ways around this, simply submit to multiple journals and if you work at a University like I do simply submit it to your head of department, they will put their name on it and it has to be submitted to the University journal…this is the only reason you see any papers even considering ID.
Origin of life:
First and foremost if you want historical accuracy then I would recommend looking to the Islamic God Allah and Islam rather than the Jewish-Christian God Yahweh, but beyond that I will not participate in debated of religion. I am sorry but I refuse to argue religion, or which God(s) if any exist, etc. Personal reasons, I hope you understand.
You however are correct about Earth’s magnetic field dropping (thought the read more link does not seem to do anything for me) by about 14% (13.7%) since 1830, however I do not see how this gives us a young Earth age, yes the Earth’s magnetic field was much stronger in the past, this is what we find in iron deposits here in Australia, but a magnetic field no matter how strong should not do anything to the Earth itself aside from blocking electricly charged cosmic debris more effectively.
Beyond that I do not see any design in the electro-magnetic force, if there is could you explain it to me, Physics is not my strong suit, I am after all a Biologist each department tends to only come together when their fields overlap (For example when testing cellular structure I might turn to a Biochemist and a Microbiologist).
Well like I told you before I can’t debate religion with someone who is not even a theist. All I can do is point out historical facts about the resurrection of Jesus, testimony to supernatural events that happened and why they are believable. But I don’t even want to debate religion with you. I am calling you out on your own profession and trying to make sense of why you believe the way you do.
The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth’s magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. In other words, it seems likely that the Earth’s magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young.
You’ve seen that video haven’t you?
This is going to make you kind of embarrassed, other than than the fact that from Iron deposits of different ages we can tell that the Earth’s magnetic field fluctuates, magnetic fields don’t produce heat, you are mistaking magnetic intensity for heat released…sorry
That video has confused more than one person and in one form or another your statistics are displayed all over the internet, basicly it stems from one man who is mistaking 128 times magnetic strength with 128 times the surface temperature.
I don’t know what video you are talking about. I did not post a video on the magnetic field.
Since I cannot find the original video, I’m just going to post a link to my journalist friend on YouTube and show you the error as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eFM6C3lfc&feature=plcp&context=C32d3302UDOEgsToPDskJ8zKouQWpGl9G1KgBinDm-
sorry, I should have cleared this up
I know you didn’t post a video, I’m saying the original source for your information is a video of a Creationist conference on the Earth’s age.
The fact is that the Earth’s magnetic field does not produce heat, or even any sort of energy.
Ok I am going to post a video on that and may be we can get the conversation straight because it seems we are all over the place with this magnetic field proving the age of the earth thing. OK?
That should be fine, my Internet is back up so I can watch movies now (first world problems)
LOL @ first world problems with great educations! Ironic inst it?
Quiet you Science doesn’t pay well. One does not get into science (especially Biology) for money but because you are curious and wish to find out how the world works.
Your point is understood about “heat” but you still have a big problem with the “age” of the magnetic field this is the bigger problem. If we lose the magnetic field we lose our protection from the sun. Do you understand the heat thing now? We are not saying that the magnetic field produces heat but that it protects us from heat. That video that you posted was just silly to say the least, entertaining but misleading. Please see this new post to continue this discussion
No, the Earth’s magnetic field does not protect Earth from excess heat, rather it protects us from positivity charged particles ejected from the sun.
However there is no indication that a particularly powerful magnetic field would have any ill effects on the the Earth itself. If it decays then that is in the future not the past and cannot give an approximate age from this, Magnetic fields do not produce heat…sorry
Yes the magnetic field does protect us from the suns heat Here is the article
However you are right about the quote, it does seem to be wrong and indicates to say that the magnetic field produces heat. I don’t know about the effects of the stronger magnetic field being detrimental but it does indicate that its not very old to say the least either way.
Once again, you are confusing solar radiation (in this case positivity charges helium and hydrogen particles) for heat radiation. Let me explain:
-the magnetic field is turns the Earth (at least for this case) into a magnet, however instead of being a normal magnet the Earth is like two magnets inside one another as both poles are positivity and negatively charged. This means that in the case of a radiation burst (commonly known as a solar flare) the positivity charged particles ejected from the Sun are directed along these poles to what are known as the North and South magnetic poles of the Earth (slightly off from the true North and South poles) here the particles react with those in the atmosphere casing what is known as the Northern or Southern Lights.
-this is where the common misconception of heat comes in, when/ if the Earth’s magnetic field decays to the point where it cannot direct positively charged effectively then they will react directly with the atmosphere, primarily the Ozone Layer, Ozone being an oxygen compound that used UV light as a catalysis in decomposition thus naturalizing it, eventually the Ozone layer would completely decay in some areas thus allowing UV light through and with it what a lot of people experience as a raise in temperature (a reaction between UV light and the skin).
However I don’t understand as things encounter resistance (i.e. the spinning iron core in the centre of the Earth that causes the magnetic field encountering resistance with the surrounding molten rock) they slow down, are you saying that because of this the Earth must be young even though this is exactly what one would expect to happen in an old Earth as well as a Young one.
Beyond that, you did not approve most of my comments, only those then you responded to and sometimes you didn’t even approve those, appearing as if you are responding to nothing, this is probably either an accident on your part, an attempt to save space, or deliberate.
Beyond that, I am glad that you have decided to keep this on a public forum though I doubt anyone would be interested in anything I type.
For the record, MaximusMcc does not know me personally, the only reason he thinks I’m a professor (though that is not my actual title I am a Biologist with a PHD, I spend most of my time in the lab, I don’t teach only appear to give the occasional lecture or explain my findings to the students) is because he questioned my education…though I would appreciate it MaximusMcc if you are reading this not to give to this forum details about where I work, I was foolish to give them to you in the first place…though I’m unsure what a person could do with the limited information about myself you possess.
“though I doubt anyone would be interested in anything I type.” I enjoyed your comments, thanks. I have no degrees but am an avid reader with general interest in history and science. My replies to MaximusMcc have been more along the lines of “objective morality.” peace
Thank you, though my writing is very dry so to speak as most of what I am saying is High School Biology and Chemistry to keep it simple enough for the “normal” person to understand.
Well I have always enjoyed an open and frank discussion and if you had left any comments that I did not approve that is news to me. I only disapprove some comments that have nothing to do with the subjects which I get a lot. The last one I disapproved said: “You look like a buffoon”. and this is all it said really. This is actually quite common so that is why I moderate comments. I like the platform here because I can give open reign to certain users that have meaningful tings to say and the comments are automatically approved to certain users.
Trolls on YouTube…say it ain’t so!
Personally being a scientist I don’t approve of any censorship, even that of trolls and people who really have no idea what they are talking about.
It is not a “discussion” when you cut and paste hundreds of words from an LDS article. I don’t care for this format for the reasons GreedyCapybara7 mentioned. There were 41 messages from this board in my mailbox, all with the same title. No way to tell who you were responding to. Even when you are responding to me, I can’t see the original you were responding to. Seems very disjointed.
Calvin, Whenever you make a comment there is a place to subscribe or unsubscribe to the comments. I am referencing articles that I have read as well as making my own points. You can unsubscribe at any time if you don’t want to be apart of it. There is also a link in your emails to do this, I don’t know how to make it more easy for a person to participate or not participate.
Well, I just typed a long reply and it was deleted because I had not put in my email. On the other system, I did not have to do that. Another reason this is not as good as what you had. It seems like you are hiding. Just saying.
Calvin I don’t understand what you are saying. I will check on the functions but I don’t know what you mean by me trying to hide something?
OK, I may have done something wrong and deleted my earlier message. This time, my name and email are filled in for me. Thanks.
This may turn out to be a great forum as more people participate. What I meant by “seems …you are hiding” is that I -was- posting comments which you responded to and -that- was working fine. (If it’s not broken…)
Now, instead of 2 or 3 messages from you in direct reply to my messages, my mail box is filled with 40 messages of you talking with someone else. Interesting, but -our- conversation “seems” to be hidden.
Maybe I should have said that our conversation was getting “lost” in the larger forum. This page does look good and I hope you have some good exchanges with people. I’m going to go back over our exchanges under the video and try to get back on track. peace.
are you children actually arguing about the functions of this message board on this message board?
Yes, I am an old “child” learning to use this forum. I apologize to Max, now that I have taken more time to check out the features. I was clicked on “all” messages.
And I apologize to all the other members and guests. Please, carry on. Sincerely, Calvin
Sorry Calvin, I forget sometimes you Yanks don’t use the same slang we do down here
Child is a figure of speech down here it has next to nothing to do with your age, and what other guests? You, myself and Max (if that is actually his name) are the only three people here.
Thanks. “what other guests? ” There are no other guests I know about. I wanted to apologize to anyone who wasted their time reading my message (which to me was directed to Mx and no one else).
My first encounter with Max was from watching a YouTube video, which led to a discussion about “objective” morality. Then Max recommended this forum and here we are. peace.
same, the kids got it in his head that natural selection works by if you want wings then when you have a kid they will have wings…
I don’t want to live, on this planet any more
Greedy: I actually have a few names and sometimes I am called names that I particularly don’t care for and I am sure you do too, lol. However you can google my name “Maximus McCullough” I am all over the internet of course because of my work. As far as your slang goes feel free to use it here, I am a yank and proud of it but if you call someone from Texas a “Yank” you might be in for a fight because they take that as an insult. There are still people over here that think we are still in a civil war, lol.
Hang on…I’ve never been to America so I don’t know this, is the southern half of the States actually as violent as it’s made out to be?
Beyond that, thank you for the heads up about some Americans, the thing is that here in the Asia Pacific the term “American” is an insult (primarily constructed of a negative stenotype), the same as calling someone a Red-neck except your also calling them fat…probably shouldn’t have brought it up but Americans don’t have a particularly good reputation outside of the states.
I thought we were viewed as gods over there, GEES how things change! lol I guess since our dollar is not worth as much as it use to be we have lost our sex appeal, lol. Ok back to debunking evolution and lovin every minute of it!
In Australia, you Yanks are almost hated, you pay China with IOU’s for products, then China uses your IOU’s to pay Australia for resources (Iron, Copper, Uranium, Gold, Silver, Clay, Food, etc.)
“In Australia, you Yanks are almost hated, you pay China ….”
cs – Yes, some of us know that and want to push back against the parts of our government and society we don’t agree with, to make things “better.” That is why I want to talk to Max about “absolute” morality. thanks
Yeah that’s kind of messed up but you know the more the United States believes in survival of the fittest the more they endorse that kind of hypocritical behavior. I assure you that no creationist or ID proponent is supporting this kind of madness!
Max – Yeah that’s kind of messed up
cs – I can’t tell what you are replying to.
Max – but you know the more the United States believes in survival of the fittest
cs – Are you saying you do not believe in the survival of the fittest?
Max – the more they endorse that kind of hypocritical behavior.
cs – You are seeing something different from me. Where is the hypocrisy?
Max -I assure you that no creationist or ID proponent is supporting this kind of madness!
cs – “madness!” is a strong term. Please explain what you are calling “madness!”
I was replying to the IOU comment about the united states that Greedy left.
Max: that’s not true at all, this resection the countries that are doing well (i.e. their dollar/yen/pound/etc is increasing) are secular countries like China, Japan, Korea (south Korea statistics on anything in north Korea are hard to come by) and indeed here in Australia, even though most of Australia is Roman Catholic we have a secular government.
“I assure you that no creationist or ID proponent is supporting this kind of madness!”
three words, RICK FUCKING PERRY, you do realize that if he gets elected President that most western countries are going to boycott trade from the US right?
Yes I know that our conversation was getting lost. I did not realize that Greedy was going to really bring it “as it were” lol. I am definitely enjoying his comments and yours too. I just wish I had more time to participate. I could do this all day long, lol. I will make a new post on Objective Moral Values, I think that is a great subject and a great discussion. I will post that today.
You have time to cut and paste long articles from other people and you expect us to take the time to read them. No thanks.
I would be glad to continue with an actual discussion but you have shown you don’t have a basis for this “objective” morality you say is “obvious.” If you did, you would not have strung me along for days without telling me what it is.
Well I am sorry you feel that way Calvin. If making references to articles and videos to other peoples work is wrong then I feel that would be an uneducated discussion. I like to see what other people have to say and I am sorry if you feel that some of the post have been long in my responses to Greedy but I am communicating here. I think it is beneficial to see what other people have found about different subjects and then open the discussion. If you don’t find this interesting, helpful or compelling in any way I apologize. I do enjoy your the discussion with you but if you don’t want to discuss or refer to other peoples work and research then I don’t know what to tell you. I always thought this is what discussion was all about. How are you suggesting I do it, I am not claiming that I know it all that’s why I make references.
Max – “If making references to articles and videos to other peoples work is wrong then I feel that would be an uneducated discussion.”
cs – You were not “making references”, you were copying and pasting large chunks.
Max – I like to see what other people have to say …
cs – Yes. I want to hear what you have to say about objective morality.
Max – …and I am sorry if you feel that some of the post have been long in my responses to Greedy but I am communicating here.
cs – “Greedy” is interesting, I agree.
Max – I think it is beneficial to see what other people have found about different subjects and then open the discussion. If you don’t find this interesting, helpful or compelling in any way I apologize. I do enjoy your the discussion with you but if you don’t want to discuss or refer to other peoples work and research then I don’t know what to tell you.
cs – Discussing other people’s work is fine. Pasting more paragraphs of others work than you write of your own is -not- interesting to me.
Max – I always thought this is what discussion was all about. How are you suggesting I do it, I am not claiming that I know it all that’s why I make references.
cs – Say things in your own words. When someone questions you about why you believe such, or where did you get that information, point them to your source. Don’t argue so much -against- the other persons point, give evidence for your own. peace
Calvin: calm down, the kid doesn’t have a year 12 education and is arguing with a Biology PHD and an avid reader, let him make bad choices on sources then show him why he is wrong as apposed to wasting time commenting on the amount of other peoples work he includes with his responses.
LOL @ your 12 year eduction accusation. Where the hell do you come up with that? Do people stop educating themselves just because they graduate high school? lol, So what you are telling me is there there are no people out there with a PHD that believe like me? Why do you deceive yourself so with these weak arguments? On this blog you have talked a lot of talk but you have actually shown no evidence at all and I have given you every opportunity to do so. Lets see the evidence just don’t tell me.
LOL @ Greedy. I don’t think I have made bad choices. I have a very comfortable life here with my family. None of them go hungry all are straight A sometimes an occasional B students. They have the latest gadgets, games, bikes, motorcycles, we even have an RV, swimming pool etc. My daughter is even a successful musician you can visit her website at http://www.faithmccullough.com My client are very successful too. You don’t get all these things by making bad decisions or by being uneducated.
Max “LOL @ Greedy. I don’t think I have made bad choices.”
cs – Do you claim to be a Christian? If so, you have made some very bad choices. You are going to have a hard time following the commands of Jesus –
Luke 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
Max – “I have a very comfortable life here with my family.”
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
cs – Is it comfortable living with people you hate?
Max – “My daughter is even a successful musician you can visit her website”
cs – I wish your daughter well. Does she claim to be a Christian?
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
Max – “My client are very successful too. You don’t get all these things by making bad decisions or by being uneducated.”
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Here is my attempt to answer Calvin. I do claim to be Christian and yes I believe there is a code to live by that is laid out in the holy scriptures. I am thankful that Calvin brought up some of my shortcoming this is why Christ Came <- Biblical Teaching as well it keeps me humble to say the least but there are some things that he is just plain wrong on them.
You like Richard Dawkins misquote the Bible on a consistent basis not even knowing what it says. If you read the whole chapter you can see that Christ is using a comparison here. Its pretty simple really especially when later he is telling you to show love to complete strangers and to honor your father and mother. You are much mistaken Calin in your interpretations.
Again you are misquoting the scriptures. He is telling the women how to dress in church. Would it be appropriate to wear a bikini to court? He was merely showing the girls what was acceptable dress in Church so as not to call attention to themselves but the message of Christ and yes my daughter is a Christian.
On this comment alone you may have a point. I do take pride in my clients making lots of money some of them in excess of $1000 US a day on average. However I was pointing out here that my decisions related to my education has been very beneficial to me and my family, hardly delusional or uneducated. Its a weak premise to operate under and that is my frustration here when communicating to Greedy. I have had people with PHD’s work for me some are smart some are dumber than a box of rocks so that is why PHD’s I take with a grain of salt. I have worked harder for my company than anyone with a PHD has word for their PHD. So I hope you can appreciate that and God bless America where I have the opportunity to have my own company!
Greedy – Calvin: calm down,
cs – I feel calm, thanks. Expressing my opinions.
Greedy – the kid doesn’t have a year 12 education
cs – I am only interested in whether he claims to be a Christian.
Greedy -and is arguing with a Biology PHD and an avid reader, let him make bad choices on sources then show him why he is wrong as apposed to wasting time commenting on the amount of other peoples work he includes with his responses.
cs – Sorry, I thought that I was showing him why he is wrong. He is wrong to let other people think and speak for him. He could put up a William Lane Craig video (he has) and I could put up a Hitchens video (I have not, though I did mention a Dawkins video). I have already watched hours of Craig. I do not find him convincing in the least.
I want to hear it from Max. What is the source of objective morality? thanks.
Calvin: Yes I posted another video so we could take our conversation there so that you would not be plagued with Greedy and mine conversation. All you have to do is unsubscribe and you will not receive any more emails from this post. The link is in your emails. I am happy to answer any questions about Christianity and Objective Moral Values but if we can keep it separate I think that is considerate to the participants and readers here. Yes I did post Dr. Craig videos on Objective Morality this is what you are challenging.
Max – I am happy to answer any questions about Christianity and Objective Moral Values but if we can keep it separate I think that is considerate to the participants and readers here.
cs – It -was- separate, posting under the video I was responding to, then you invited me here. Now you are sending me off somewhere else. I think I’ll stay until Greedy starts his class. thanks.
not 12 year education, year 12 education as in a high school education (the same in your country of a first year collage education), I “[came] up with that” because you lack a high school understanding of Physics, Biology or Chemistry.
I never said that nobody with a PHD believes in ID, however now that you raise the topic such people are incredibly rare, they tend to have PHD’s other than Biology or indeed any science or simply go to what is refereed to as a “degree mill” which is a sudo-university or collage giving out PHD’s, etc with little to no study, however these degrees are not valid because the no “degree mill” is an accredited university or collage (despite what Kent Hovend will tell you).
Other than that I am unsure what you mean when you say “why do you deceive yourself with such weak arguments?”, all my arguments are peer reviewed, tested and confirmed, I never speak from my own opinion if I can avoid it because my opinion may be wrong, unlike yourself who simply does a google search and searches for an article that agrees with you.
Okay, because you clearly don’t know what “Theory of Evolution” means and because you clearly haven’t been paying attention to a single thing I have said throughout this conversation, I will outsource an answer to a video which explains both what “Theory of Evolution” means as well as examples of evidence of directly observed evolution after about the 5min mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg&list=LL3-wEYs7OcFw59HkwPTk5sQ&feature=mh_lolz
I have listened to every thing that you have written down here and no I do not lack education. I am tired of you saying that. It is just a weak argument when you cant prove what you say. You expect me to take it on your word? Ha that’s funny! Information on Google is not reliable just because it agrees with me? Laughable. Look at your accusations and quit hiding behind your PHD I don’t give a crap about your PHD make some sense, that’s all I ask. I appreciate peer reviewed articles and enjoy reading them, hell I even watch evolutionary documentaries. I know what you are promoting. Did I mention I use to believe in evolution? I am not misunderstanding anything here, I am challenging it. I love the heat in the kitchen so don’t expect me to go anywhere fast. Don’t just tell me I am wrong prove it.
I never said that information on Google is not reliable just because it agrees with you, now your just twisting my words, I said that information that agrees with you is not automaticly correct just because it agrees with you.
You haven’t read everything I’ve said or you wouldn’t keep asking for evidence after I have given it to you over and over again, evidence for evolution includes but is not limited to:
-The Fossil Record, which supplies ample fossil evidence and dates for such organisms that all coincide with evolutionary theory.
-Genetics, which supplies ample evidence of how closely organisms are related as well as supplying evidence that genetic information can be added and lost from an organism and that this effects the genes and therefore the features of the new organism.
-Taxonomy, which supplies morphological evidence of how closely organisms are related as well as allowing us to objectively classify organisms by like features, this also completely coincides with evolutionary theory even though it pre-dates evolutionary theory by hundreds of years.
-Biochemistry, which supplies a method by which evolution can occur called “mutation”, this combined with “natural selection” are the two main processes by which evolution occurs.
-Population Density Shifts, which is observed cases of “mutation” and “natural selection” acting on the density of particular genes and features within a population.
-Microbiology, the field in which organels and cells are studied providing evidence of proteins being used for multiple tasks as the case of that Creationist favourite the “flagellum” which tests have shown is simply a modified ionic pump with a protein tail extending from said pump.
-Embryology, providing direct examples of an organism morphing and showing traces of all genes that are still present in the organism (i.e. that for gills, a tail, reptilian hip, etc.) but deactivated in the fully developed organism.
Of course I’ve given you this list at least twice before I think, but again your probably going to ignore it again and ask for proof again after I have already provided ample evidence and you have debunked none.
Sorry Max but if I may rock the boat here a bit, your not humble under any stretch of the mind. Christian religion teaches that all the planets and stars were put here for people (or at least Catholicism I’m not sure otherwise), i.e. thinking that everything in the Universe was put here for man is not humble.
Hey guys the discussion form only goes down 5 levels but you can always make another comment at the end of the discussion. If there is not a “reply” button you can go to the next one up and it will show up on the same level. Just think of it as the tree of evolution! lol
…
okay, many comments diverging from a single mother comment, that’s just called diversion…but I can see where you are going
k, thanks.
Max – “If evolution were true:
1. I would NOT expect to find modern animals in the fossil record, but we do.”
cs – What do you mean by “modern?” There is certainly a huge overlap of fossils and current animals. We have the fossils, you agree. Let’s let the people who know how to analyze them do their work and see what they say.
Calvin: seriously, just leave it, your not going to get a straight answer and it’s not going to coincide with reality. The kid has no idea how evolution works, I advise you not to feed the trolls on this one, but I digress you live in a free country so do whatever you want.
I have given Calvin a straight answer Greedy. Objective moral values exist! I have not hid that at all and have been very straight. Now he wants to know how they exist and are not subjective. I explained that the Holocaust was really wrong even though the Germans thought it was right. You can reference my other video on this blog. Objective Moral Values Proves God Exists
Because I can watch and upload videos now I’m going to recommend a good cartoon from a very offensive man, enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkMatter2525#p/u/17/44ilZq3R900
Max -I have given Calvin a straight answer Greedy. Objective moral values exist! I have not hid that at all and have been very straight.
cs – You have stated what you believe. You have not shown that there is such a thing as objective morality. I’m still waiting.
Max – Now he wants to know how they exist and are not subjective. I explained that the Holocaust was really wrong even though the Germans thought it was right.
cs – No sir, you stated it as a fact. You did not explain anything.
Max – You can reference my other video on this blog. Objective Moral Values Proves God Exists
cs – William Lane Craig? I have watched him for years. You watch it and let me know where to go in the video to find “objective morality” I can’t watch too much of him. thanks.
Hey Calvin I know a man that cheated on his wife, they are still together because every time she questioned him he just denied it. He lives a life of denial and so do you. Sadly the woman and the man live a life of heartbreak and misery. Objective Moral Values do exist, the Holocaust was REALLY WRONG OBJECTIVELY even though the Germans at the time thought it was right. To me Calvin you are just a screwball and I don’t have any more time for your nonsense.
Max – He lives a life of denial and so do you.
cs – What am I denying ? You lied when you said the word “church” is in that verse you said I misquoted. You can’t be a Christian.
Max – Sadly the woman and the man live a life of heartbreak and misery.
cs – I’m doing fine, thanks.
Max – Objective Moral Values do exist, the Holocaust was REALLY WRONG OBJECTIVELY even though the Germans at the time thought it was right.
cs – You saying it over and over, even when you scream it at me, does not tell me where this objective morality comes from.
Max – To me Calvin you are just a screwball and I don’t have any more time for your nonsense.
cs – Screwball? So much for not using name calling. You don’t have time for me? Fine. My days are filled with answering my emails and reading. If there are no emails to answer, I have more time to read. Now go back to running your businesses and ignoring Jesus.
Greedy – Calvin: seriously, just leave it,
cs – Sir (until you tell me different), I am leaving a few occasional comments. It is you who is wasting your valuable time with the quantity you type. Sincerely.
Greedy – your not going to get a straight answer and it’s not going to coincide with reality. The kid has no idea how evolution works,
cs – I agree. My interest is in Christian morality/Objective morality. I see Max has set up another forum, so maybe I will collect a few notes from here and move over there for a trial period.
Greedy – I advise you not to feed the trolls on this one, but I digress you live in a free country so do whatever you want.
cs – I have only given a few crumbs of skepticism compared to your banquet of science. Thanks and peace.
Wasting my time? I am a Biologist waiting for the fresh meat (what you people call freshmen, first year University students) to start on the 20th, I have nothing but time as I only have lab access for a certain period of time before time is cleared for me to give lectures…which I have no students for, it’s so we don’t spend our lives in the labs
Beyond that I will not give you information either way, I refuse to give any personal information, if people hadn’t questioned my education I honestly wouldn’t have mentioned I am a Biologist.
Ya, I realize now what I have done with regards to my own troll comment, beyond that I may have offended Max of Lizz. Lat it be known however that the second this turns into a debate on religion I’m gone, without a word.
Calvin: Greedy and I came here because YouTube was limiting our comment space, we needed to be able to post longer comments. I would not say that Greedy is wasting valuable time evolution scam gets over hundreds of visitors believers in evolution and non believers alike from all over the world. Like I said I am a web developer and this site will continue to be viewed every day and will rise analytically with the keywords “evolution scam” which is a very hot topic. I also installed a grabber with grabs the comments from the particular you tube video that I want and posts them in this forum. The only comments that I throw out have nothing to do with the subjects we are discussing. Comments that just insult but try to make no point at all don’t belong in this forum. Such comments are like “Calvin is a retard, Greedy is dumb, Max is stupid” etc. So instead of posting several small comments we were finally able to get out everything we wanted to day, we were getting lost in the posts on YouTube.
Hang on, a little bit off topic but you Yanks have freedom of speech a freedom that most on the planet do not…yet when given the power you still censor people?
Max: you do realise that as soon as Uni starts for my fresh meat I won’t be commenting on this forum anymore right?
Greedy what are you talking about? I did not sensor anything you said. I don’t know why you keep saying that I do. Do you want me to take off where you work at? I know you wanted to keep that confidential before but I think you got pissed off and put it up there since someone insulted your education because of your spelling handicap that I also do share.
I’m not saying you censored me I’m saying you deleted troll comments, and I’ve already mentioned my work place on this forum once (by accident I assure you, when my credentials are questioned I don’t think things through fully)…and it’s not just that I type fast, I think it might also be partly because us Aussies spell things differently to you Yanks, I know this has come up on several occasions.
LOL! Ok so I have been watching this conversation for some time. Have to say that I totally agree with MaximusMcc. MaximusMcc it seems you have some wanna be people on here that are simply here to try to turn you against your beliefs and over to their beliefs. So seriously GreedyCapybara7, do you honestly expect people to take you as a serious scientist? Your arguments are weak. You have to admit that when it comes down to the line that you have no proof to back up your claims other than trying to rely on the shirttails of previous evolutionists whose story you choose to buy. Your claim as a “SCIENTIST” must mean you know how to mix cleaning solvents without exploding yourself thus far. How you became such a highly accredited individual at an upper level school without basic grammar and spelling skills must be one of your examples of evolution. So you appear to believe that if something appears to have design it cannot possibly be designed. It apparently just fell magically into place all by itself. Hmmmm… It would be simply amazing if you over all previous claimants to the evolutionary hierarchy would actually be able to come up with proof of evolution. I am not speaking of supposition or assumptions. If you want to speak like you are an intelligent human being, you could at least try to come up with an intelligent argument. Your little sidekick, Calvin, has been quite entertaining as well. However, I fail to see where either of you has come up with any real, undeniable evidence to prove your theory. Why not just admit that you have faith in a belief system like everyone else who does not try to lie to themselves and pretend that contrary evidence to your religion does not exist.
I think Greedy already admitted that he takes some things on faith because its not mathematics. I do think that Greedy is a real scientist I could be wrong on that so don’t quote me however I don’t believe in evolution as fact. He has some interesting things about shooting dog DNA into a jellyfish or something like that but there is no video on it. As far as misspellings go you could bust my balls on that one too, I think Greedy like me tends to type fast and misspellings come with trying to get your thought out there on the computer screen before it flies away, lol. Thanks for the support though Elizabeth its much appreciated.
No, I said that mathematics is largely based on faith…and I said that jellyfish genes have been spliced into lab rats before when trying to replicate the experiment done by the people in the video below…and to be perfectly honest it was an accident, they were trying to make a protein that caused brain stem cells to glow in UV light (so they could be identified) however turns out that the same protein is used the construction of pours or hair foliaceous (the pits at the base of hairs) making shaved or naked mice glow and haired mice the ears, feet and any areas of bare skin also began to glow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0UzdYRnMtY
That was cool! Amazing design that they work together like that! It could not be done unless we had a common designer that gave us intelligible information in order to do this kind of work!
Excuse me, so because rats and mice which we know to be very closely related and because they use similar proteins for the same task then there must be a designer? I’m sorry I’m not following your reason, this works on just about an organism because the entire gene in inserted and not segments, therefore the protein created is that of a jellyfish and not of the rat and jellyfish and the protein itself is what is luminescent as found through later experiments where the protein was extracted.
Well Greedy the reasoning is actually very simple. Think of nails and screws we use them in many applications. So there is no problem here that the designer used similar materials.
or like in reality the screw is an adapted nail (the adding of a thread).
Yes but there is no natural process observed that can cause the formation of screws or nails from the same material or at all where there is for life.
For your information I am a Biologist at the University of Queensland, Australia; insulting my education and siding with the person who owns the forum but has yet to provide any testable evidence does not make my arguments weak. In fact quite the opposite, my arguments are based on testable evidence and requires no “belief” or faith, I do not “believe” that species evolved Science does not allow for belief I can only comment on the evidence, all of which supports evolution.
This is why Evolution is called a Theory not a Hypothesis like ID, a Theory is an idea that is supported by all facts and refuted by none (i.e. Evolutionary Theory) where as a Hypothesis is an initial idea with no supporting facts available (i.e. Intelligent Design).
You haven’t read everything I’ve said or you wouldn’t keep asking for evidence after I have given it to you over and over again, evidence for evolution includes but is not limited to:
-The Fossil Record, which supplies ample fossil evidence and dates for such organisms that all coincide with evolutionary theory.
-Genetics, which supplies ample evidence of how closely organisms are related as well as supplying evidence that genetic information can be added and lost from an organism and that this effects the genes and therefore the features of the new organism.
-Taxonomy, which supplies morphological evidence of how closely organisms are related as well as allowing us to objectively classify organisms by like features, this also completely coincides with evolutionary theory even though it pre-dates evolutionary theory by hundreds of years.
-Biochemistry, which supplies a method by which evolution can occur called “mutation”, this combined with “natural selection” are the two main processes by which evolution occurs.
-Population Density Shifts, which is observed cases of “mutation” and “natural selection” acting on the density of particular genes and features within a population.
-Microbiology, the field in which organels and cells are studied providing evidence of proteins being used for multiple tasks as the case of that Creationist favourite the “flagellum” which tests have shown is simply a modified ionic pump with a protein tail extending from said pump.
Beyond that I do not know Calvin, I know little about why he/she/it is here and know even less about him/her/it as a person. He/She/It can be very rude at times, but is far from my “sidekick” as you put it, we do not always agree as seen in this post but we do coincide and agree on many points, the only difference is that I am not as forward about Science as he/her/it is.
and…with that I have given away personal information that I made such an effort to keep quiet.
Beyond that, let it be noted that I do not approve of Calvin’s quote mining of the New Testament or questioning of your faith and addressing Calvin directly if they believe they are Christian then they are, Christianity is based on faith not works remember?
Further to that becoming a Christian or indeed a Creationist is not a bad choice for most people, it offers comfort, closure and a sense of purpose that Naturalism, Atheism and Agnosticism do not. I did not say Max that you make bad choices all the time, only that your choice of sources tend to be very bad and I will not be joining any more pages as I barely want to be here and do not want to bury myself in this Creationist forum like a Militaristic Atheist or Creationist stereotype.
Greedy – and…with that I have given away personal information that I made such an effort to keep quiet.
Beyond that, let it be noted that I do not approve of Calvin’s quote mining of the New Testament or questioning of your faith …
cs – I am quoting the Bible, not “quote mining.”
My goal is to point out to the claimant that they are not what they claim to be. You have your style and goal, I have mine.
Greedy – and addressing Calvin directly if they believe they are Christian then they are, Christianity is based on faith not works remember?
cs – Are you saying if Max believes he is a biologists, he is? Surely not. There are qualifications to be a biologist and same for being a Christian. ymmv.
Greedy – Further to that becoming a Christian or indeed a Creationist is not a bad choice for most people, it offers comfort, closure and a sense of purpose that Naturalism, Atheism and Agnosticism do not.
cs – Which denomination are you?
Greedy – I did not say Max that you make bad choices all the time, only that your choice of sources tend to be very bad and I will not be joining any more pages as I barely want to be here and do not want to bury myself in this Creationist forum like a Militaristic Atheist or Creationist stereotype.
cs – peace
to further my point they are Christian because they believe they are, because the religion is based on faith alone and not works (i.e. you can be the worst person or the best person on the planet it doesn’t matter) then they are Christian is they believe they are and nothing else.
This does not work for formal titles or even any other religion on the planet as almost every single philosophy, title, religion or position is based on a persons works or their works and faith, not faith alone.
Sorry I should have answered your question before posing Calvin, I am Agnostic, more to that I am an Agnostic-Atheist because I have yet to see any evidence for God(s) but do not rule out the possibility or one or more existing, I just put it in the . category as Dragons, Giants, Chocolate planets and all other Gods (this category means something very different if you are not Agnostic).
Based on the limited information I have on you I am going to guess here (I really don’t like guessing but this should be amusing) that you are either a Militaristic-Atheist or a Naturalistic-Atheist.
GEES!
Max – GEES!
CS – What are you replying to?
Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Greedy – Beyond that I do not know Calvin, I know little about why he
cs – snip
Greedy – He… can be very rude at times, but is far from my “sidekick” as you put it, we do not always agree as seen in this post but we do coincide and agree on many points, the only difference is that I am not as forward about Science as he/her/it is.
cs – I apologize for being rude and forward. I agree we are not sidekicks but we do agree on more than either of us agrees with Max. My interest is in people who claim to be Christians. My hypothesis is that there are actually -no- Christians.
Max and I were having a reasonable (at least in the sense of number of exchanges per day) discussion, when he switched to this format. Now I have 40+ emails per day and very few concerning me. I’m not sure why I’m staying, it is something like slowing down at a car wreck because it is interesting. peace
Sorry, I did not mean to offend you if I have nor question your motives or your hypothesis about Christianity (note the use of the word hypothesis). I honestly do not mind you here you are as they say a much needed break from my rather dull scientific approach (though I try to make it as interesting as possible)
However regarding your hypothesis I must interject, I was Roman Catholic until I was 14 years old. During that time I learned that indeed all Christian faiths (that I am aware of) with the obvious exception of Protestant Christianity are based on faith alone. That is that Jesus dies at the cross for the sins of anyone who believed in him and accepted him as their hero and rejected any and all other philosophies. This means that it does not matter if they follow the rules set by the New or Old testament or even the modern Law they will be rewarded because they are Christian regardless.
Greedy – Sorry, I did not mean to offend you if I have nor question your motives or your hypothesis about Christianity (note the use of the word hypothesis).
cs – I used the word hypothesis. Not sure why you are pointing it out.
Greedy – I honestly do not mind you here you are as they say a much needed break from my rather dull scientific approach (though I try to make it as interesting as possible)
cs – Science is fascinating.
Greedy – However regarding your hypothesis I must interject, I was Roman Catholic until I was 14 years old. During that time I learned that indeed all Christian faiths (that I am aware of) with the obvious exception of Protestant Christianity are based on faith alone.
cs – Yes, if we eliminate all the groups that the other groups do not accept, there are no Christians. Exactly my point.
Greedy – That is that Jesus dies at the cross for the sins of anyone who believed in him and accepted him as their hero and rejected any and all other philosophies.
cs – An immoral belief. To think you can put your responsibilities off on someone else.
Greedy – This means that it does not matter if they follow the rules set by the New or Old testament or even the modern Law they will be rewarded because they are Christian regardless.
cs – Without the Bible, there is nothing for Christianity to stand on. Everything we think we know about Jesus comes from there.
Calvin: I think science is fascinating as well, this is why it is my field of choice. However I do know that my approach is seen by others to be rather dull, I am not a scientific journalist and am no stranger to students legitimately falling asleep during my lectures.
I’m sorry I honestly didn’t realize that I pretty much discounted every other branch of Christianity other than that which I was a part of for a period of my life (once again giving away personal information, I will be more careful).
I did not say I agreed with the morality of Jesus dying on the cross and therefore taking the punishment for everyone who was born in the right country or foolish enough to believe that to be the case.
And almost everything about Jesus in the Bible is wrong, just concerning his birth;
-there was no empire wide census
-there was a local census but took place 14BCE (i.e. before the birth of Christ) and did not require anyone to return to their town of birth (such a movement of people cannot be organised).
-there was a second local census conducted some time later (though I do not know the date) and also did not require anyone to return to their town of birth
-said king did not organise either census and did died before the supposed birth of Christ
Greedy – Calvin: I think science is fascinating….
CS – I agreed with everything in this post except that you are boring. At least not in your comments here. peace.
cs – Here is a video by biologist Jonathan Wells.
w.. dot youtube dot com/watch?v=Se-5QFsT15Y
cs – This is a man who, if we believe his claims, is a biologist and a Dr. He spends the entire 5:30 speaking negatively about evolution.
“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” – Theodosius Dobzhansky
FUCK
I need to be more careful
“died” not “did died”
okay, anyone who knows the first thing about the fossil record knows that the emergence of Hominids from other Great Apes is one of the most well documented transitions almost more so than Tetrapod development primarily because of our thick, dense skulls.
Darwinius Masuli first isn’t a lemur or at least not quite a lemur, it’s around half way between what are now considered to be lemurs and old world monkeys.
He then says that natural selection only acts on changes within species, even though specisation is very well observed and documented and says that mutation cannot make “new” parts, which has also been observed and is actually rather common in species that replicate fast.
I have heard of Jonathan Wells him and the Discovery done a few lectures here and there in Australia around expositions, one of my past students showed me one of them. He stood there mouth agape as Jonathan spouted stuff similar to this. I can tell you that not a single thing he said in that video was even remotely routed in fact.
Greedy – okay, anyone who knows the first thing about the fossil record….
cs – I agree completely. My point was that here Max has a PHD to point to who agrees with him. That is the problem. We have people, at least here in the States, who are willing to go through college courses, then go out and lie about it. it is obvious to you he is lying and it is obvious to me, but Max will soak it up and help to spread the misinformation. thanks
“Discovery Institute” not “Discovery”
must remember to proof read responses this is becoming embarrassing.
I never said he wasn’t a Biologist, however he is a Biology PHD as Kent Hovent is an Education PHD
Kent is a good teacher but he should of paid his taxes. Why are you guys saying that I have a PHD? I only said that I had people work for me that have a PHD. I never claimed to have a PHD and I don’t have to have one to learn. I don’t need a PHD to make money those that do have a PHD need it to make money however anyone can learn without a PHD contrary to what the evolutionist claim. For instance if I am looking for someone in computer science because I want to develop an application I will consider a candidate with a PHD. Yes they work for that PHD and that is impressive. They do have a lot of strong preconceived notions and sometimes that is the hardest thing to deal with. Things that work in school don’t always work in the real world. Some of them cannot see past their PHD and just do their job so I fire them. My best employee came out of a “scrap yard” I gave her a chance and she has been just as effective if not more so in some aspects than anyone with a PHD in her field.
Max – My best employee came out of a “scrap yard” I gave her a chance and she has been just as effective if not more so in some aspects than anyone with a PHD in her field.
cs – What is a PHD in scrap yard?
What? You make no sense. She does not have a PHD that’s my point.
Max – What? You make no sense. She does not have a PHD that’s my point.
cs – Sorry, I should have said, What is a PHD in her field? thanks.
1. “Why are you guys saying that I have a PHD? I only said that I had people work for me that have a PHD. I never claimed to have a PHD and I don’t have to have one to learn. ”
Just to point out that Calvin’s assertion not my own, I am unsure if you have ever mentioned your education. But to be perfectly honest I really don’t care for credentials, the only reason anyone knows of mine is because I become rather quick tempered when people question my education (spend 20 years in books then tell me you won’t get just a little pissed).
2. “I never claimed to have a PHD and I don’t have to have one to learn. I don’t need a PHD to make money those that do have a PHD need it to make money however anyone can learn without a PHD contrary to what the evolutionist claim.”
We’ve been through this before, please rephrase using proper English. The phrase you are looking for is “Scientific development” not “evolutionist claims” that is intentionally misleading and misrepresenting the opposing side, “evolutionist” implies religion which it is not and claim implies unsubstantiated which no Theory is.
3. “Yes they work for that PHD and that is impressive. They do have a lot of strong preconceived notions and sometimes that is the hardest thing to deal with.”
Thank you, however in certain lines of work such as my own a PHD is not optional but a requirement. However I must correct you on “preconceived notions” no such things exist in science, all Theories and Hypothesis’ must be falsifiable and subject to retesting.
4. “Some of them cannot see past their PHD and just do their job so I fire them. My best employee came out of a “scrap yard” I gave her a chance and she has been just as effective if not more so in some aspects than anyone with a PHD in her field.”
Correct, having a PHD does not always mean you are the most qualified for a position. Nobody said it did, all we were discussing are those like Kent Hovend and Jonathan Wells who get “fake” PHD’s then use them to gain authority.
1. I totally agree with your point #1 no question.
2. As I pointed out so many times before “Evolutionist” is a term in the dictionary. You use terms like “Spaghetti Monster” which is not even in the dictionary. So who is using proper English or misleading people here? We have an old saying over here in the states it goes something like this “Practice what you preach”. This does not mean that I am going to refrain from using the word “evolutionist” it communicates exactly what it is. Evolution is an invisible force that takes faith to believe in. So evolutionist is a very good word to communicate what people are promoting.
3. Well evolution is a preconceived notion even for Charles Darwin. Lets investigate further here.
Now looking at this definition and understanding what you said earlier about Darwinian Evolution I would say this matches perfectly with the “Preconceived Notion” definition. Notie what you said on Jan 31;
Now I agree with you that we should not have preconceived notions in science but we clearly see this is not that case with evolution.
4. Well I think you are wrong about Kent Hovind he was a nationally known speaker even before his PHD I think but even if he wasn’t I think its a great way to get people to listen to you if you have a valid point. Interestingly enough he makes the same claims that you do that he worked hard for his PHD blah blah blah. Ok well I really don’t care about his PHD either but I do love to listen to him. I think its funny that most of the people that talk about him are willing right away to say he is a liar but as soon as I ask about what he lies about they can only refer to tax fraud. Well sure he did not pay his taxes and he is in jail but that has nothing to do with what he talked about when it came to the Creation Evolution debate. I thought he brought up a lot if interesting points and slayed a lot of evolutionist in debates. I think maybe this is why they have a lot of animosity towards him but that’s to be expected. Take for instance the things that you learn and you share. You are a very interesting person especially with your knowledge about biology, I really liked the rat and the jellyfish example. I think it would be silly for me to reject that bonified evidence just because you believe in and promote evolution. What is a fake PHD anyway? Also what makes you more qualified than Jonathan Wells? He looks at the same facts you do don’t he? I actually dont even know this man and I did not know if he had a PHD or not, like I said I don’t care. Interesting points that make sense are my objective here.
Um those are not “evidences” those are “statements”. The only evidence that you have showed is the jelly fish DNA injected into lab rats, which was cool by the way. Evidence and statements are totally different.
Hang on, if species can mutate (genetics) and that mutation has an effect on the population density and the taxonomical characteristics of that organism, and we have ample examples of such happening in the past (fossil record) this is not evidence of Evolution which is mutation having an effect on the population density and the taxonomical characteristics of which we have ample examples of such happenings in the past?
Okay, so if Evolution is not evidence for Evolution then what would be?
I think I should define what Kind of evolution I am challenging. Ape to man of course is one. Just because you find fossils of different species and you can inject jelly fish DNA into a rat and get a result does not justify the conclusion that creatures are morphing into other creatures. The science is flawed the conclusions are presumptions and not science.
Ape to man…your going to have to rephrase that to terms that I can understand, it’s been a while since I’ve been to a Christian Church so I’m not sure what your getting at if it’s a religious thing. But taking it literally (which I know isn’t the case) Humans are apes…saying you are challenging ape to man evolution is the same as saying that you don’t know a road between England and London. This is not opinion either and has nothing to do with evolution it is taxonomy, it’s not up for discussion.
Also Evolution is observed tested and is now the only Theory on the diversity of life on this planet all you are doing is imposing barriers that do not exist on the process and pretending that Evolution is a religion.
Beyond that, thank you we were getting a little sidetracked here.
Greedy – Ape to man…your going to have to rephrase that to terms that I can understand, it’s been a while since I’ve been to a Christian Church so I’m not sure what your getting at if it’s a religious thing.
cs – Thanks Greedy, this is where our interests converge. There is a large group of people who are willing to undermine all of science to hold on to ancient beliefs. While I am not a scientist, I am very interested in science and education. Thus, I spend my time discussing with those people to get down to their core beliefs. You can argue about whether the wine actually turns to blood, etc. and that is interesting to me, but not enough so as to make me deny science to believe it or to waste a lot of time on it. Religion poisons everything.
Calvin if I could ask you a question, I am pretty lost on this “ape to man” thing, I know he isn’t literal because we’ve had this discussion on YouTube before, men are apes. So he probably means something completely to it’s literal meaning different but I cannot tell what it is. Do you know what he’s on about?
“different from it’s literal meaning”
FUCK
That’s easy! It’s evidence for intelligent design!
so because humans are apes and you are uneducated on the matter of evolution that is evidence for magic?
Well I don’t know why you would come up with that conclusion. I don’t believe in magic but of course you must be uneducated on everything else except evolution. Sounds like indoctrination to me, you really should get out more!
WOW Greedy! Apparently you missed alot in 14 years. I certainly do not agree with everything taught in the Catholic church, however I do believe you were taught very poorly about Christianity. Perhaps if you spent as much time studying what Christianity actually is and checked on the scientific data that backs it up as you do on here, you might actually figure it out. I do believe (oops sorry, I forgot for a moment you are afraid of that word), rather I do see where you have been turned upside down. Walking around saying, “I believe in Christ therefor I am a Christian,” does not actually make one a Christian. It also has nothing to do with scientific facts. You seem confused also in thinking that theories are based solely on fact and are never refuted. If Calvin were such an avid reader of scientific writings, then I am sure he could give you a list of them. Faith alone is not Christianity. True Christians who choose to BELIEVE in God, will search out the facts and go through the data to see that evidence supports their BELIEF. I think that a true SCIENTIST would fully research their BELIEFS as well. The difference between the religions of Christianity and evolution as far as those who truly believe comes down to whether one is willing to look at all the FACTS or just the ones that support their THEORY. (BTW – A theory is based on supposition and interpretation of evidence not facts.)
You are confusing Christianity with Creationism (common mistake) and yes a Theory is a grouping of facts, thus a Theory is supported by all facts and debunked by none, for example it is a fact that species evolve, examples of Mirco-Evolution and Macro-Evolution are very carefully documented the Theory of Evolution seeks to explain why this happens, this is largely through Genetics and Taxonomy that this is achieved.
No, while a theory can be seen as an interpretation of facts this is far from the case. This is the common definition you are using, the scientific definition is as I listed above (when discussing science one used the scientific definition).
What Creationism and indeed ID which is a product of I think it’s Baptist Creationism that started the movement though politics is not my field of choice, is simply pick and chose “evidence” as they see fit even if such evidence does not exist. However Science does not pick and chose but takes into account all facts and evidence and seeks to make an understand based on this, this is where Evolution comes from is an unbiased (or pretty much as close as humans can get) understand of all evidence and facts with the only faith needed in Mathematics.
“seeks to make an understanding” not “seeks to make an understand”
Liz: regarding your comment on design, if you will sit through what is frankly a rather insulting video by a Texan Atheist explaining the principals of design and why some people wish to see design in Biological systems. I know a lot of people on the internet can be very insulting, I myself have been told that I’m a murdering, idiotic, satin worshipping puppet many times. But if you will simply sit through this it may explain a few things.
Let it be noted that I myself am not Atheist and do not approve of this man’s opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U&feature=g-vrec&context=G27cf6dcRVAAAAAAAACA
Sorry Max, I only just got your Flagellum video working.
1. the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, in fact it is one of the easier examples of such claims to debunk, yes it is true that take parts away from the mechanism and it is no longer a flagellum…however take the hook and tail away and it is an ion pump (a mechanism that controls the flow of H+ ions in and out of the cell or in other words controls the acidity of the environment inside the cell), all parts of the cell are like this while they may not form their current function is slightly different they almost always perform other functions that we can see in related species or even the same cell.
2. a good example of irreducibly complexity is the Venus Fly Trap, it closes fast to catch insects. A slowly closing version would catch next to nothing…I’ll let you dwell upon that and tell me what you think the answer is (nothing to do with evolution this results from breeding within a genus).
I think I will stick with Michael Behe’s explanation, it makes more sense and is more scientific. Its very difficult to believe these parts assembled themselves just because they had an apparent need to. Evolutionary explanations of this are ridiculous as well as thier other explanations that things are built from the bottom up in slow progression when they dont have that much time. Did you ever see that they found “red blood cells” in dinosaurs believed to be extinct 65 million years? That is just trying to match a story to the evidence. Too far fetched!
it what universe is saying that it got here by magic even though there is a far more likely natural explanation with all stages not only present in the fossil record but still alive today and even within the same cell.
What do you mean “ridiculous”, each stage has a selective advantage over the other and evidence of each stage is found in modern organisms.
I have heard of that claim, I can tell you that it is 100% false, you can follow the papers with this claim to one by Marry H.Schweitzer who does not describe red blood cells at all but “transparent soft tissue vessels” that had been fossilised and “round red micro-structures” that floated freely in the de-mineralizing solution…in other words not red blood cells!
sorry
“in the same cell” more scientific?
is what I meant to write
Your video example, if that is what you are calling it, was boringly entertaining to say the least. You wish me to take imaginative comments and evolutionist fantasies as fact? I thought we were discussing science not science fiction. I mention evidence for your evolutionary belief and you show me imaginations. Hmmmm. What can one say to such irrelevant information? Do you have any proof for what you believe, and just what do you call yourself, if not atheist? You only speak about your faith in the indoctrination that you have been taught in schools which do not allow free thinking. You believe because you were told for so many years that that is all there is and everything else is false. You are quite a closed minded individual and as I respond to you I understand that you sit inside your box afraid of opening the lid.
oh yes, if you wish to get to the point of the video I would recommend skipping to the 2min mark.
No, I showed you a slightly entertaining video explaining why people may see design in natural systems when no design need be perceived as everything observed already has a natural explanation yet others like yourself still opt for a supernatural one as you think it exceeds the natural one on grounds that do not exist.
No, I have already been through evidence for evolution, how many times do I have to repeat it before people stop asking for information I have already given over and over again.
“…evidence for evolution includes but is not limited to [all data present in the fields of]:
-The Fossil Record, which supplies ample fossil evidence and dates for such organisms that all coincide with evolutionary theory.
-Genetics, which supplies ample evidence of how closely organisms are related as well as supplying evidence that genetic information can be added and lost from an organism and that this effects the genes and therefore the features of the new organism.
-Taxonomy, which supplies morphological evidence of how closely organisms are related as well as allowing us to objectively classify organisms by like features, this also completely coincides with evolutionary theory even though it pre-dates evolutionary theory by hundreds of years.
-Biochemistry, which supplies a method by which evolution can occur called “mutation”, this combined with “natural selection” are the two main processes by which evolution occurs.
-Population Density Shifts, which is observed cases of “mutation” and “natural selection” acting on the density of particular genes and features within a population.
-Microbiology, the field in which organels and cells are studied providing evidence of proteins being used for multiple tasks as the case of that Creationist favourite the “flagellum” which tests have shown is simply a modified ionic pump with a protein tail extending from said pump.
-Embryology, providing direct examples of an organism morphing and showing traces of all genes that are still present in the organism (i.e. that for gills, a tail, reptilian hip, etc.) but deactivated in the fully developed organism.”
Beyond that the term you are using “evolutionist” is incorrect, the correct term you are looking for would be “scientific observation” (in the case of evolutionary observation) or “Non-Theist falsities” (in the case of incorrect observations made by non-theists) rather than “evolutionist falsities”. “Evolutionist” implies a religion of which evolution is not because a religion requires faith and belief both of which are absent from the scientific method.
Again one does not “believe” in evolution as belief requires “faith” which is a conclusion without or beyond testable evidence, evolution like all scientific theories is based on nothing but testable evidence, therefore there is no belief required.
Your right evolutionist is a religion and they are indoctrinating that whole world. Yes one does “believe” in evolution like I “don’t believe” in evolution. Its a religion plain and simple and it comes in many denominations as well.
There is a growing trend particularly in your country that needs to be addressed, and that’s calling any evidence based science or belief a religion;
-evolution is a religion
-climate science is a religion
-even Atheism defined as a lack of religion according to Creationists is a religion
You don’t get to make the rules, you don’t get to put your non-reason on the same shelf as reason. Your belief goes somewhere else with Thor, Ra, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and all other Gods and your attempts at “science” go in another separate location with “Flat Earth”, “Newtonian Gravity”, “Elemental Theory” and “the Earth centred Universe”.
Well said Greedy!
According to your definition of subjective morality anyone can make the rules on anything individuals, society, etc. So #1 what exactly do you mean that a person can’t make the rules?
#2 Evolution is constantly changing its theory around because the core of the theory is flawed. You yourself even said that Darwin was wrong many times. This in itself turns evolution into a religion. I don’t know what your problem is with that except the fact that you are an avid believer in it and promote it so much.
#3 I have put the definition of atheism from the dictionary here so many times but I will do it again.
Now I don’t know why you have a problem with this definition but that is what it is. You don’t get to change the rules and yes I believe in Objective Morality. So when one is claiming to be atheist this is the definition, I don’t see anywhere where it talks about religion.
#4 Your spaghetti monster BS is exactly what I called it “BS”! Theist are not delusional as you suppose. Many are successful in so many ways and their accomplishments are many. Using this straw-man tactic is really fooling yourself about theist and their worldview. Being a theist myself coming from being an atheist I find more fulfillment of my inner belief of honesty, integrity, loyalty, and all the qualities that enhance and enrich my life. I can see that these things are greater than myself or of my community, country or world. They are not a delusion as atheist assume but these are real qualities that we possess. This is not an evolutionary mechanism at work here as you may suppose it to be. These are Objective Moral Values and were designed and given by the same one who gave the natural laws. You can fool yourself into insanity and think that men make up all the rules but your wrong and you are wrong about the Christian God as well. We have great historical evidence that he came to earth died and was resurrected. You have nothing even close for you you are likening the other gods, your just being silly.
#1-yes morality is subjective, that means that it is circumstantial different thing may be considered to be right or wrong depending on the situation.
#2-I said that Darwin was wrong in many aspects of evolution, that is not abnormal, Sir Isaac Newton was wrong in most subjects of gravity, however with further research Gravity and Evolution are now much stronger (Evolution more so as Gravity is a bad example being known false) and no, I do not “believe” in much primarily not evolution because no “belief” is required as belief is faith based, which science and therefore evolution are not. A Religion is based on faith, science is not…do you see the difference?
#3-what part of your definition says Atheism is a religion (A-Theism: ‘A’ = no, Theism = ‘religion’)
#4-now your just pulling things I never said out of the either, I never said that Theists were delusional, if people want to fill in the gaps within knowledge with personal belief is their own business, however Creationists who dogmatically hold to their +2,000 year old tales even though they are demonstrably false and try to implement their unsubstantiated claims into education especially one already importing almost all their PHD candidates I do have a problem with.
#1. there is subjective morality and objective morality
#2. Gravity is a fact we can see it feel its effects and observe it. Not the case with evolution, you have to use your imagination there.
#3. That is not my definition of Atheism its from the dictionary at dictionary.com. look it up for yourself
#4. You implied that theist were delusional by bringing up the spaghetti monster straw man that so many in your religion bring up when talking to a theist.
Max – “#3. That is not my definition of Atheism its from the dictionary at dictionary.com. look it up for yourself”
cs – looking at dictionary.com
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism
cs – They give the origin as "godless." It is actually without god. A lot of book publishers are owned by religious institutions. They don't mind changing the meaning of a word if they think it will help them. I am very disappointed about this. Outside of the Bible, I trusted dictionaries more than anything.
Who cares who they are owned by? Are you for real here? If you are hungry and I have a sandwich are you going to refuse it because I own it? Lets say that there are 2 maps. I own one an evolutionist owns the other. You are telling me you are going to use his just because he is an evolutionist? Whats your reasoning here? It sounds like hate to me. Well you reject the Bible and the dictionaries I see whats wrong here you just want to reason in circles and there is no absolute truth. Let me ask you a question. Is there absolute truth?
Calvin-small point, what you are putting forward is that the website changed this on purpose and you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
The correct response (so as to prevent a personal attack from Max again) would be:
“the definition on dictionary.com is incorrect because it is known as a “shallow” definition, this means that it seems to be dumbed down and subject to biased interpretation by Max, most non-theistic philosophies are only a comment on the evidence available or the possibility of evidence ever being available…for example, I am an Agnostic-Atheist, this means that I have no religion (Atheist) and that I think testable evidence for the existence of God(s) is imposable.”
On a side note, most people either Theist or Atheist tend to be Agnostic because of the nature of the supernatural.
Greedy why do you make up things as we go along? The dictionary is there so we can get meanings from words. If you are going to make up your own meanings and continually say that meanings in the dictionary are incorrect you are the one that looks like a conspiracy theorist.
What is the “nature” of the “supernatural”? LOL
Often when Creationists say they are complaining about Evolution they are complaining about science in general, that is they are completely ignoring the three basic fields of Science (Chemistry, Biology and Physics) and a new field called “Emergence” which tries to bring Biology and Chemistry into mathematics the same way Physics did in the case of Cosmology in favour of their particular myth.
Often as in your case they put all this under one title called “Evolutionism” which is an attempt to bring Science down into a religion and claim that it is based on Faith alone, this is not the case, Science is based on reason and empirical, testable evidence while religion and apologetics (the field which ID falls under and is described as justifying religious claims) are in fact based on faith and cherry picking evidence as they see fit.
The good thing is that Creationists do not get to make the rules about what goes where, this is why Biology, Chemistry and Physics are sciences and Creation is not. Those with a slightly greater understand of science will brand Evolution alone and call it “Darwinism” in the same attempt to bring Biology down into the pit of Religion, however “Darwinism” does not exist, even it is a relic 150 years old and was limited to Darwin’s students which because of the lack of evidence did in fact take Evolution on faith, however because of the large body of evidence supporting the Theory today this is no longer the case with most people.
I have given you the definitions of both science and evolution if you cannot see the difference then that is your handicap. Evolutionism/ evolutionist are also found in the dictionary here is the meaning.
Just because evolutionist have the upper hand now does not mean that they are going to keep it. I am fighting to bring it to where it should be and that is a choice not a fact. It is a belief system no matter how you slice the cheese. It is an alternative to real science if you don’t want to believe in a god which indeed is your right even in the eyes of theism. Science shows us that things come into being in their complete form, the fossil record and biology. There is nothing that you can show that is in a transitional state. Not being complete and functional.. This BS that you and others in the Evolution religion are claiming eg. “O you just don’t understand evolution” That’s like the Scientologist coming up to me and saying “O you just don’t understand Scientology” Or better yet the spaghetti monstorIST coming up to me and saying “o you just don’t understand spaghetti!”
okay, I’m going to separate this into four parts to make it simpler for you, the first will be this explanation, the second dealing with your first paragraph, the third being of your definition and the final paragraph being of yours.
Evolution is a science, as shown by your definition and the scientific method (similar to the case of the whales earlier). Evolutionist is not an excepted term, we’ve been through this, many terms in the dictionary are not “proper English” and are thus discounted>
Country to your 4th definition the Theory of Evolution ONLY covers one aspect of Biology. I’ve been through this, one not need believe, such a position is based on faith evolution and science need no faith…what strikes me as strange is not only do you seem to systematic ignore ever second thing I say but that because of this I have to repeat myself continuously.
I will not tackle the belief thing again, I have done it enough. Evolution is Science, I’ve said it again and again, evolution is a scientific theory, based on falsifiable, testable, resettable, verifiable, objective evidence…I don’t know how many times I have to say this, Science does not show use animals magically appearing in their current form, nothing in the fossil record or any aspect of Biology, Chemistry or Geology indicate that.
Some Transitional Forms Include (I’ve been through this before)
-Any lobe finned fish such as Tiktaalik (fish tetrapod transition)
-Any thick skinned Tetrapod (tetrapod reptile transition)
-Any Gorgonopsid or Diectodon (reptile mammal transition)
-Any Dinosaur epically Therapods (reptile bird transition)
-not to mention every single Hominid ever found
If you want specific examples I will supply some for each, all you have to do is ask or provide the gap that you wish filled.
No, I say you are uneducated on the matter of evolution because you show no education on the subject (the lack of education on the subject being interpretable as a lack of education on the subject). Evidence for this even in your own paragraph is that of you saying that there are no transitional forms even though the majority of the fossil record even according to a Creationist definition is composed of such forms.
Now that’s a good one, I would love to see where a Creationist is admitting to a transitional form? Ok I will make this simple for you since you do not want to accept the dictionary definitions that the entire world accepts. I guess when you are dogmatically defending your faith anything goes even common sense.
Lets start with Tiktaalik shall we?
Now as far as being uneducated on evolution I am not. I simply disagree and I am giving rebuttals as much as time allows me too. Evolution is not science and I wish you would quit saying that your religion is science. That’s just silly. As pointed out from the Tiktaalik above we can see that your imagination is at work here. Of course it is guided by a presupposition but quit calling it science because it is not.
1. “Now that’s a good one, I would love to see where a Creationist is admitting to a transitional form?”
I said definition, please read what I write, I do that curtsy to you I would appreciate it if you did the same.
2. “For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be “missing links” until they were discovered to be some form of fish.”
Correct, like I said Tiktaalik is a lobe finned fish with highly modified forelimbs however unlike what you said, it is incorrect that Tiktaalik’s forelimbs were suited for swimming, they were not as mobile as modern fish fins and were probably used for “walking” alone the riverbed much like modern lungfish and because of the considerable size they were probably strong enough to haul the animal out of the water for short periods of time like modern mud-skippers (which themselves are not a transition but a later development filling a similar lifestyle)
3. “Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird”
Could you then enlighten me on what constitutes a bird and what features a bird has that any dinosaur did not?
4.”Now as far as being uneducated on evolution I am not. I simply disagree and I am giving rebuttals as much as time allows me too”
Just earlier in this conversation you stated that if evolution were true that you should grow wings because your Grandfather wanted them. You are either uneducated on the subject or pardon for a better word but stupid, this is shown by your misrepresentations and misconceptions about the topic, meaning that you were never told otherwise (uneducated) or simply do not understand and therefore dis-guard it (stupid).
5. “Evolution is not science and I wish you would quit saying that your religion is science.”
We’ve been through this before, even by your own definition evolution is a science, get over it! You don’t get to make the rules here, trying to drag science down with religion is a petty attempt at equilibrium. Evolution is a scientific theory, that is established and is not up for discussion.
1.This is exactly what you wrote and you don’t see how you are implying that Creationist believe in transitional forms? That being said you are claiming that there are transitional forms in a creationist definition?
2. Well you can have all the “probabilities” that you want about Tiktaalik if it was an amphibian or not really don’t matter. Either way this is not evidence for evolution we have a completely formed creature here that had functioning parts.
3. Well like everything else there are similarities and differences I will point out a few differences in anatomy here.
a. Modern birds lack the long tail and teeth of dinosaurs
b. Forelimbs
c. birds have beaks
d. Difference in size
e. Weight
Did dinosaurs have wings? Of course some did like the platypus has a bill like a duck. I do not understand how this supports the theory of evolution at all. Similarities point to a common designer not evolution and until you can debunk that in the slightest way you are going to have problems with your theory.
4. On your point 4 you earlier were bringing out how when evolution sees the need for something it happens. I was giving you a scenario on why that is improbable without intelligence. For example, evolutionist claim the birds developed wings to fly away from danger and to eat. Well you can apply that same logic to other things as well. Your logic is FLAWED that is what you need to understand. We are not going to “grow wings” just because some unseen natural or some blind supernatural force [evolution] sees the need to. I know I am using personification here but nevertheless I think you get my point. Your mechanism is unseen the force that you believe in yes “evolution” is invisible. In other words where is it at? Can I meet him/her/it? Do you understand what I am getting at here? Are you educated enough with your big ol PHD to understand that your mechanism that you claim to believe in and exist is invisible? Now you might say that you can see its work and that proves that it exists but that would be your first step towards creationism that I have accepted and followed the evidence no matter where it led me.
5. LOL well I am discussing it and as I pointed out in #4 this unseen force is your god therefore it is religion. Your religion. May the force be with you! LMAO!
1. yes
2. yes, exactly what evolution predicts exactly where and when it is predicted, an organism will not live with barely functioning parts if those parts are critical to it’s lifestyle, this is why no such organisms exist…be that as it may, Tiktaalik is still a fist to tetrapod transition there is no dancing around it.
3.a) but you said that Archaeopteryx was 100% bird and it had a long tail…in fact most birds did until around 70million years ago.
b) define…do you mean modified for flight or gliding? or along those lines…as most raptors and small therapods have highly modified forelimbs.
c) so do ceratopsians (horned), ankilosaurs (armoured), ornithopods (two legged beaked), herbivorous therapods such as Oviraptor and ornithischian (duck billed) dinosaurs
d) mircoraptor less than a foot long and most early birds were huge compared to the pitching verities alive today.
e) everything about a dinosaur (like birds) is designed to save weight in fact a three metre long raptor would be lighter than some modern birds of prey.
Here you are trying to shift the gift of proof, unfortunetly it is not my position to debunk the existence of God(s) unless there is evidence for a supernatural force in any given situation a natural one is given authority, especially one as clearly understood as evolution. Yes dinosaur to bird evolution is in question, this is primarily to the discovery of microraptor which has a bone structure similar to early therapods (raptors) and crocodiles, it seems from this that raptors may have split from the main therapod line much earlier then previously thought.
4. someone needs to learn how we describe complex process to the main populous…it’s called personification. Anyone with even a grade school understanding of Biology normally can tell what I mean, saying “feature ‘a’ developed so that the organism could ‘b'” is a common technique used to dumb down Biology to a level people can understand. You took it literally! showing your complete ignorance on the subject.
5. Evolution is not an unseen force nor does it require one mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are all commonly observed and documented…evolution is a scientific theory not a religion, a religion is assumed on faith and requires the supernatural, even Buddhism which has no God(s) is a religion (debatable) because it assumes the existence of the supernatural. Science does not because the supernatural aceo-facto cannot be observed and tested.
1. ok
2. Who’s dancing? LOL. I say its not a transition you say it is. It looks like a completely formed creature to me but you believe everything is transitional so whats your point? You have to understand there are millions of you guys out there making millions of predictions in the name of evolution. You are bound to find a bone every once in a while. I think its funny that you can take something like this and believe in it but when there is a written record of prophecy in the Bible and it predicts and come true you reject it. LOL
3. I think the answer is obvious most land dwelling Dinosaurs had forelimbs like claws and birds have wings and feathers. Like spinosaurus, T-rex etc. Here is a pic I think what you need to understand is yes I think everything is related so I don’t know why you try to proved to me that they are, I agree with you. What I don’t agree with you on is that they are descendants from each other. I was not trying to shift anything I was just trying to understand what your point was. I have no agenda when it comes to the facts. Facts are facts simple and true.
4. LOL I guess I’m just dumb then! However can you really see your response? Every time you are cornered with logic you claim the other individual is uneducated and stupid. Why do you resort to such a method? I am seeing holes in the theory of evolution and you continually defend it dogmatically and are not willing to call it “faith”? I think its strange that you speak of evolution like some people speak of their God and don’t even realize it!
5. Ok then like I said before if its not an unseen force then let me see it! Now you are asking me to do the same thing with God so man up and show me evolution! I don’t want to see what you consider the results of evolution I want to see evolution him/her/ it!
Long story short your knowledge on evolution, the fossil record, taxonomy and even general biology could be surpassed by anyone who spends 15min reading the Wikipedia entry.
Well of course you are going to say something like that. Truth is I spend a lot more time considering the subject than most. Your criticism of my analysis leaves much to be desired with this kind of comeback. If it were that obvious I don’t think I would question it that much. For instance, I don’t question gravity, orbit, entropy, or anything that I can actually see observe or experience. I don’t question the existence of the fossil record at all but I do question the evolutionist interpretation not because of a gut feeling but because of evidence observed. Taxonomy is a classification of species and I think it is helpful but with such a variety in creation it has its challenges. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension of course I know you think that is debatable, lol. [pun intended.]
1. ya, even by the strictest creationist definition the majority of the fossil record is composed of transitional forms.
2.a) no, Tiktaalik is a genuine transition. Of course the animal is “fully formed” a half developed animal would die upon conception even before then, that’s why no creatures exist or ever have and that’s also why evolution does not require such animals. Only those who are completely ignorant on even grade school Biology think that evolution requires any animal that is half formed like the corocduck.
b) no, if all predictions ever made by any reputable Biologist then the theory is reputable nobody is making predictions every which way, only scripture and astrology do that…and if you want to use fulfilled supernatural predictions as evidence (which it is not) then I recommend Islam not Christianity.
3. so you think they are related but you don’t think they are related…on the same line you think Birds are Dinosaurs but you don’t think Birds are Dinosaurs…your logic makes no sense.
4.There are no such holes, perhaps in the particular sequence of mutations as not every single organism that ever existed can be fossilised and put on record. I call people uneducated when they lack education in a particular field, for example they make stupid assertions like “if evolution were true…we wouldn’t find modern animals in the fossil record” or continue to push a point like “no translational forms exist” even though a quick 15 min read of Wikipedia will correct them.
5.But Science is ambivalent about the existence of God(s), because no testable evidence for their existance is possible. However I am interested…so because no barrier is observed, no barrier mechanism is observed, there is no need for such a mechanism, all evidence indicates there is no such barrier, no organism has any indications of such a barrier…a barrier must exist?
1-2a. So you are saying that creationist believe in transitional forms? No we don’t!
2b. Oh now you are recommending religious faith? Funny!
3. My logic makes perfect sense how many times do I have to tell you that we all have the same designer? Does that not make us related? All of us made from the dirt? All of us breathing the breath of life? Its how you say we are related that I am challenging. I am no descendent of a fish, frog, monkey or ape Pun Intended There is nothing that you can show that proves that we are descendents of these creatures that one cannot look at and say same designer. I never said birds were dinosaurs, I did say that some dinosaurs may have had feathers. Big deal!
4. Well you call people uneducated if they don’t agree with evolutionary theory and that about wraps that up in a nutshell. If evolution were true we would not find modern animals in the fossil record. Evolution claims things evolve gradually. This is logical that if alligators and crocks are millions of years older than man, they had more time to evolve yet while you are claiming the ape to man evolution the alligators and crocks are staying the same. Now I think that is a good challenge, if you cant see the logic in that I don’t think you are being honest. So evolution stops for some and goes for others? This theory changes all the time not because its science and not because its right. Its just not reliable they make up the story as they go. As far as transitional forms I have looked at the evidence, its weak unreliable and just simply not there. I looked at the so called whale evolution here it is again and its ridiculous. You don’t see major holes in this?
5. You look at all the same things I do only you say, “Wow look what evolution did” I look at it and say “Wow look at what God did”. You give credit to evolution I give credit to a designer. I know that it is ambivalent if it was obvious we would not have to keep searching. I think its a great situation and a genius plan of God, the barrier does exist no doubt.
1. no, please listen to what I say. I’m saying that creationists have a definition for such an occurrence…however like you they tend to plug their ears, close their eyes and yell “lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala” at the slightest smell of a fact.
2a) you seem to be repeating the same point I discredited earlier…please be sure not to repeat arguments already dealt with and falsified it will make the discussion all the easier.
b)no, but based on your premiss and incredibly low double standard for what you consider to be “evidence” I am making a more solid recommendation…for example if you were to say that if you had an apple it is evidence for a dinosaur making apples then I would recommend you adjust your position to one that has more apples…if that makes sense?
3. here you are going off on an impossible tangent, so I’m just going to go through this slowly step by step.
(i) you are not descendent from a monkey or ape…you are a monkey and ape, most people accept evolution primarily on faith, this much is true (I’ll get to your point soon) however one does not have to…however this said in order to eliminate faith one must have an understanding of; genetics, palaeontology, morphology, anatomy, microbiology, zoology, organic chemistry and taxonomy…the later almost nobody knows squat about, I would even wager that Calvin a fellow “evolutionist” knows next to nothing on the subject and I know you don’t. That’s the problem, I’m going to sound like a preacher here but the fact is that you don’t know half of what you think you do, and that’s the appeal of your position is that to assume it one needs to know shit all!
(ii) and no due to this your logic does not make sense, you are shifting the gift of proof…let me explain? When coming across two scenarios, one being supernatural and untestable (your position) and one a natural explanation that is testable (my position) then the natural one must be given order. This is what is wrong with your logic, you have assumed a supernatural untestable hypothesis from the get go, then try to shift the gift of proof to the naturalistic argument…doesn’t work like that, unfortunetly you don’t get to make the rules.
4. Have you listen to a single word I’ve said in this entire conversation? We’ve dealt with all these points before, you put up a case and I showed you why you were wrong, bringing up the same argument again after it has been debunked does not add validity.
5. “You look at all the same things I do only you say, “Wow look what evolution did” I look at it and say “Wow look at what God did”. You give credit to evolution I give credit to a designer. I know that it is ambivalent if it was obvious we would not have to keep searching. I think its a great situation and a genius plan of God, the barrier does exist no doubt.”
I’m pretty sure you weren’t thinking straight when you put this response together, so I’m going to let you try again…or if this is your actual response then just tell me and I’ll answer, though I advise against the later as we have dealt with all of this before.
1. well I really think that you are being unfair in your judgment here. I am reading everything you are putting down hell, I have even research a thing or too and quoted from your own side of the fence. You accuse me of sticking my fingers in my ears and going la la la la la la la la. Yet at the same time I am responding and debunking most of what you say.
2a. You did not discredit anything your just wrong.
2b. How low are you going to go here to try an convince yourself that just because I don’t see thing the way you do I am not playing with a full deck as it were? Talk about intellectually dishonest you don’t even have a Biblical knowledge by your own admission and you recommending a faith?
3(i) Well thank you for going through it slowly and step by step but it really was not necessary. I am glad though that you finally realize that evolutionist are taking the evolutionary theory on “Faith”. I will readily admit that some parts of evolution are true because I do know how they work 😉 However what I am challenging here is that I don’t think for the most part they consider all the evidence. In fact they turn a blind eye to it all the time. This is my problem with evolutionist, I have no problem with scientist just evolutionist. You see Calvin badgering me that because I drive I car I need to thank evolution and that I shouldn’t question it. It’s this mentality that I am sick of, evolution is a faith and a religion and I thank you for confirming that I truly do!
(ii)Let me spell something out for you.
1. Things look designed.
2. There are natural processes
3. Natural processes look designed
4. There are forces that guide natural processes
5. These forces are not visible
The fallacy that you fail to see is that you have assumed that natural processes is all there is. I consider both the natural and unnatural and logically so because there are even natural things that cannot be proven with science like the existence of your great great grandfather. I refuse to hold a blind eye to these types of things as well as considering supernatural explanations. There is nothing wrong with disciplining ones self and focusing on one thing but when you are blind on purpose that’s when I have a problem with the agenda. The irony here is that you are accusing me of not understanding evolution and yet at the same time you say its simple and anyone who spends 15min the the wikipedia will get a good understanding. BTW I know I don’t get to make the rules I believe in Objective Moral Values, remember?
4. Well I don’t think that we are wrong I think you are. Remember the logic you presented to me? here it is:
Why don’t you apply that to your whale evolution?
5. Well to clarify, the answer is obvious of course to me and other theist. The answer is not obvious to naturalist, evolutionist etc. We all have questions which make the subject ambivalent, why would there be a need for faith if God were not ambivalent in some ways? Sure this sounds edgy and some such as yourself I assume just don’t like the thought of it. Yet I believe it is true because we have to have freedom. It’s actually a perfect scenario.
Max – You see Calvin badgering me that because I drive I car I need to thank evolution and that I shouldn’t question it.
cs – Do you twist everything around? I’m not talking about evolution. I am talking about you not being a Christian. Christians don’t own things. They give to the poor, then they are poor. They are told not to take thought of tomorrow. Not to be greedy, or proud.
This is an exact quote from you Calvin! Your the twisted one here not me! Your also the hypocrite as well!
Greedy: Based on the limited information I have on you I am going to guess here (I really don’t like guessing but this should be amusing) that you are either a Militaristic-Atheist or a Naturalistic-Atheist.
CS – Amusing? Just ask. I was a Methodist forty years. I am now an agnostic atheist and I am an anti-theist. “Militaristic” implies a use of force which I would never use. thanks
okay, probably shouldn’t have put that forward, it’s kind of off topic.
Not a problem to me. I am the one who is off topic on this list. I would be glad to discuss what little I know about evolution with Max. I defer to you on that subject as long as you can stay. My goal is to hound him about “objective morality.” peace
Perhaps I can help, I know that from my studies of the local fauna that most mammals have similar moral values to humans. They don’t kill, steal, rape they condone homosexuals, they condone minorities and in social mammals the rates of which they break these are much lower than humans.
Take for example the Platypus, even through they are primarily solitary animals they have a complex social structure. Only rarely will one steal the nest or stretch of river from another, they barely if ever murder one another over anything, only after a long and complicated ritual does intercourse follow and if the female or male resists then it is over they will not force the other into it.
Or social carnivores such as the infamous Tasmanian Devil (as seen on Loony Tunes) even in the feeding frenzy they rarely attack one another and when they do they try to limit physical violence. No Devil will steal from another they will share a caucus but rarely take it for themselves.
Both these examples are lower mammals (monotreme and marsupial), examples increases greatly when approaching placental mammals.
Thanks! Hey, there was a “reply” button.
Greedy has given some examples of morality in nature. That is a good starting point.
Piranhas, which are usually thought of as vicious, blood thirsty, etc. do not kill each other. If that is not “objective” morality, I don’t know what is.
Actually piranhas do eat each other, they are fine during the wet season when the forests are flooded and there is enough food and oxygen to go around, but as soon as food supplies drop they begin to eat each other. The not eating each other during a feeding frenzy is less about morality and more about if they bite another piranha they they will also get bitten. In the end they are just trying to save their own skin.
LOL if that is not funny I don’t know what is. That’s called instinct not morality.
It’s instinct in humans too…if it’s information encoded into our person by genetic factors it’s called instinct. Like verticality all social mammals humans “morality” is instinctual for the most part.
Well I believe that humans have instinct as well. Breathing when first born, a baby suckling, etc. I have no problem with that. Yet as we grow our choices are not always based on instinct. I would have to make the challenge here that animals are always based on instinct and I cannot think of any that are not. Instinct is a good design for sure but intelligence which science shows the animals have to a limited extent are something we excel at. Now I don’t see animals showing honesty, counting numbers, or entertaining thoughts of the afterlife. I think those qualities belong to the humans. Now you could possibly argue here that a bird will count its eggs or that a creature fears death and runs etc. however the argument is weak in comparison. There is no evidence at all if we give them a longer time to evolve that they would evolve into this higher thinking spiritual character, evolutionist are claiming that they evolved longer than we have anyway.
I shouldn’t use the word “information” that’s incorrect, I’ll rephrase that;
if aspects of behaviour are directly the result of particular genes then it is called instinct.
LOL, information is ok, I like information.
What is funny? Morality is, imo, an evolved instinct. We think we are “better” than piranhas and the “lesser” apes and I think (if we are,) it is because our moral instinct is more developed.
I appreciate Greedy’s correction and I should have said, do not [usually] kill each other. thanks.
Subjective Morality may evolve as in the case of family, region, country, etc. When it crosses the objective morality line then there is a problem that needs to be addressed. We see this all over the world so don’t tell me that it don’t exist. You deny evidence right under your nose if you deny Objective Moral Values.
Your welcome, there are better examples even within fish, Sharks the personification of a killing machine even in the feeding frenzy don’t eat each other (there is always one murder so don’t bother pointing out a rare case), the fact that Piranhas do eat each other has to do with the tremendously “stressful” environment for fish their environment tends to be (low oxygen and rare food).
and yes, what we call morality is instinctual and like I’ve pointed out to Max on several occasions most social animals have much higher developed systems than us humans, for example Dolphins and Whales have a similar moral system to humans yet little to no punishment is needed to keep individuals in line, they seem to do the right thing only because it is the right thing to do both possessing problem solving skills that greatly surpass . However he said this was false because Whales are hunted by the Japanese (as if that was relevant).
Oh now your putting words in my mouth:
They are acting on instinct that is all I am telling you. If they were truly intelligent like you claim they would attack the Japanese country with bombs, and other devices in order to retaliate. Do you we see this? of course not. Don’t tell me that they are just as intelligent as humans. That just silly, but you evolutionist make some really silly claims and have been for centuries. Dolphins and whales are lovable creatures like my dog who I can teach tricks too as well. I can tell him to go get my shoes and he gets them. He can tell me when he has to go to potty outside etc. This is no more than advanced instinct because if he goes potty outside he gets a treat.
1.”They are acting through instinct”
So are humans Max
2.”if they were truly intelligent like you claim they would attack the Japanese country with bombs, and other devices in order to retaliate.”
In what universe is it possible to build complex tools without any fine motor control? Building tools is the only category in which humans reign over all others.
3.”Don’t tell me that they are just as intelligent as humans.”
I didn’t, I said they were more so in some areas, more accurately problem solving. Building tools is not the only category by which we define intelligence.
4.”This is no more than advanced instinct because if he goes potty outside he gets a treat.”
Firstly; I would like you to refrain from using the word “potty” it sounds like your five years old
Secondly; no, instinct even by your own definition is inborn, if you have to learn unrelated patterns then it is not instinct. For example, Walking, not killing people, talking are all instinct…however typing on a keyboard is not instinct.
Beyond that, it would do you good to look up “Intelligence” not “Intelligent”, one is a noun the other a adjective. Leading to a misrepresentation for anyone that doesn’t read your posts clearly.
#1. Of course humans have instinct no problem there. In fact I know of instances where human instinct and human intelligence are at odds. eg. You are in the woods and you find yourself in front of a bear, what do you do? Instinct tells you to run, intelligence tells you to play dead.
#2 Well if they were so intelligent like you claim I am sure they could figure out a way. However if they are so advanced in communicating and intelligence why don’t they get taught in schools and they themselves become professors etc. Is this what you are implying? Their brains are bigger than ours of course. That’s no problem for me because I don’t believe in evolution [size of brain = more or less intelligence] We don’t believe mind and brain are one and the same.
#3 in what areas are you implying that dolphins and whales they are more intelligent?
#4 Sorry for using the word “Potty” I have small children at home and when I was writing you at that particular time they were reading what I was writing. I believe that walking too is instinct but it is learned never the less. This is advanced instinct. Problem solving instinct I think would be a good field to get into. I call it advanced instinct as well because they obviously have not been created with the ability to show all the intelligence that humans have. Of course this is my hypothesis but I think the classifications between instinct and intelligent behavior are vague.
#5 As you can see I have taken the time to look up both the word “intelligence” as well as “intelligent” and posted them both here for your amusement. I call it amusement because I thought it was a silly question on your behalf. They evidently have identical meanings now maybe things are different where you come from but here I don’t think anyone is having a problem understanding what I am writing. Never the less I will try to be more sensitive to the situation if you can point out my misuse of these terms.
Here is my attempt to answer Calvin. I do claim to be Christian and yes I believe there is a code to live by that is laid out in the holy scriptures. I am thankful that Calvin brought up some of my shortcoming this is why Christ Came < – Biblical Teaching as well it keeps me humble to say the least but there are some things that he is just plain wrong on them.
cs – Great. Please tell me what they are. I love studying the Bible.
Max – You like Richard Dawkins misquote the Bible
cs – Please show me where I have misquoted the Bible. I usually go to the KJV on biblegateway dot com.
Max – on a consistent basis not even knowing what it says. If you read the whole chapter you can see that Christ is using a comparison here.
cs – Show how the context is any different and I will be glad to learn.
Max – Its pretty simple really especially when later he is telling you to show love to complete strangers and to honor your father and mother. You are much mistaken Calin in your interpretations.
cs – I’m not sure which verse you are talking about here. Luke 14:26 says “hate”. In Strong’s Concordance it is number 3404. It is the same word used through out the New Testament.
Max – “My daughter is even a successful musician you can visit her website”
cs – I wish your daughter well. Does she claim to be a Christian?
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
Again you are misquoting the scriptures. He is telling the women how to dress in church.
CS – Where do you get that? Here is the verse before and after:
1 Timothy 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
cs – Where does that mention church?
Max – Would it be appropriate to wear a bikini to court?
cs – What does that have to do with what the Bible says?
Max – He was merely showing the girls what was acceptable dress in Church so as not to call attention to themselves but the message of Christ and yes my daughter is a Christian.
cs – Please show me the word “church” in 1 Timothy 2. It is nowhere in the chapter. You are either lying or misinformed.
Max – “My client are very successful too. You don’t get all these things by making bad decisions or by being uneducated.”
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Max – On this comment alone you may have a point. I do take pride in my clients making lots of money some of them in excess of $1000 US a day on average.
cs – I think all my points stand until you show that I have misquoted.
Max – However I was pointing out here that my decisions related to my education has been very beneficial to me and my family, hardly delusional or uneducated.
CS – Jesus asked his followers to leave their families and give up all they had. You couldn’t possibly be a Christian.
Max – Its a weak premise to operate under and that is my frustration here when communicating to Greedy. I have had people with PHD’s work for me some are smart some are dumber than a box of rocks so that is why PHD’s I take with a grain of salt. I have worked harder for my company than anyone with a PHD has word for their PHD.
cs – Since I don’t have a PHD, I won’t presume to know how much work goes in to one.
Max – So I hope you can appreciate that and God bless America where I have the opportunity to have my own company!
cs – WWJD?
Small point to Calvin, in Biology (or any science) it is 8 years of study to get a PHD, first there is 3 years where you get your major, then 1 year honours finally you work for 4 years to work on your Thesis and get your PHD and once that is done you are likely to be hider by the University where you obtained your credentials and go straight into work.
And Max, I envy you and your work earning $1,000 a day is far beyond my pay, you earn so much more than me, here in Australia scientists get paid so little that I am still living in “student” accommodation. However unlike you I spend my time enhancing human understanding
Thanks. I wonder if Max worked 4 – 8 years before his company made a profit?
don’t say that, your making it sound like I wasn’t a greasy teenager for the first part of that.
Wisdom is better than money yet wisdom can bring money. I love to understand but I hate the evolution is trying to match a story to the evidence when the evidence should be telling a story. Evolutionist are operating on Darwin’s hunch not interpreting the evidence.
If you had any idea of what a Theory was (even though I’ve explained this on many occasions) you wouldn’t call it a hunch. Natural selection and Evolution are fact, it is a fact that animals can, have and do Evolve, it is a fact that natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift all play a role in this process (none of this has changed since each mechanisms discovery). The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain HOW things evolve, for that we use Genetics, Taxonomy, Embryology and ALL available evidence to form the conclusion that we have now. As new evidence arises unlike ID real science cannot simply ignore it, we must adjust our theories or create new ones that explain the situation better, so far evolution has not been replaced because it explains every aspect of Biology almost perfectly.
I love science I have no problem with science at all. I know that science changes and that we have to change our thinking about things when we find new information. However the theory of evolution I do have a problem with because unlike science it takes imagination to believe it. There are some things in evolution that are based on science like adaptation and variation. No argument here this is a fact in every way shape and form. The following are the definitions of first science and the second evolution. With science we have knowledge based on facts, with evolution however we have a study based on a presupposition. Now I am sure that I don’t have to point out the other differences between science and evolution you can see them for yourself here. Yet unlike your claim there is a real difference between science and evolution.
Max – “However the theory of evolution I do have a problem with because unlike science it takes imagination to believe it.”
cs – Unlike a talking snake, a talking donkey, a bush that burns without being consumed, people rising from the dead. No imagination there. 8]
Wow Calvin I am surprised you came up with that analogy. So you are saying that it takes imagination to believe in evolution? Just curious because from your accusation above I can conclude in the affirmative. Yet just like everything else you misquote those as well. The talking snake no doubt you are referring to the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent that tempted Eve. No doubt the donkey that talked to Balaam is your other reference. We have seen many movies where this same thing has been done. Its called ventriloquism. I am sure that you have thought about that. However if there are spiritual beings and entities which are proven scientifically they exist I am sure they too can use ventriloquism. As far as something being on fire and not being consumed, you evidently never used a gas stove or a gas furnace. Not much imagination there at all. However to believe in supernatural causes which I do I favor such things like the origin of the universe, origin of life, etc. For this I do have an imagination on how God created everything. I do not doubt it that God had made it I am just wondering what is the process for harnessing energy to atoms and molecules with a word. I am wondering exactly where the natural world stops sometimes and the supernatural takes over.
What is light? How are dreams made? Why 5 digits on each hand? What is consciousness? Why feelings when mathematics is precise? What would it be like to see sound and hear blue? What determines a supernatural cause? Science does not deal with this because it is limited to natural causes are natural causes all there is? Hell no, far from it. There are tons of things that happen that cannot be repeatable, observable and testable. Supernatural events are such things.
Wow Calvin I am surprised you came up with that analogy.
Max – Wow Calvin I am surprised you came up with that analogy.
cs – You have surprised me more than once.
Max – So you are saying that it takes imagination to believe in evolution?
cs – No. Wherever did you get that idea? (I will answer the rest tomorrow)
For anyone reading this comment Calvin felt the need to break up my conversation with him. This is not an actual conversation but Calvin’s edited responses
Max – Wow Calvin I am surprised you came up with that analogy.
cs – You have surprised me more than once.
Max – So you are saying that it takes imagination to believe in evolution?
cs – No. Wherever did you get that idea?
Max – Just curious because from your accusation
cs – Please point out my “accusation ”
Max – from your accusation above I can conclude in the affirmative.
Max – Yet just like everything else you misquote those as well.
cs – Please show where I have misquoted or retract this statement and apologize.
Max – … no doubt you are referring to the story of Adam and Eve
cs – Yes. If they did not sin, there is no reason for Jesus or anyone else to die for me. ymmv.
Max – and the serpent that tempted Eve. No doubt the donkey that talked to Balaam is your other reference.
cs – Yes, thanks.
Max – We have seen many movies where this same thing has been done.
cs – I don’t care too much for movies. We were talking about the word of G-d. Did Eve sin or not?
Max – Its called ventriloquism. I am sure that you have thought about that. However if there are spiritual beings
cs – Yes. And (if) dreams were horses, beggars could fly.
Max – and entities which are proven scientifically they exist I am sure they too can use ventriloquism.
cs – Yes, we agree there.
Max – As far as something being on fire and not being consumed, you evidently never used a gas stove or a gas furnace.
cs – I have used propane tanks of different sizes. They last for awhile, then they run out (are consumed.)
Max – Not much imagination there at all.
cs – It takes imagination to believe a bush would not be consumed.
Max – However to believe in supernatural causes which I do I favor such things like the
cs – ?
Max – origin of the universe,
cs – see Cosmology
Max – origin of life
cs – see abiogenesis.
Max – , etc. For this I do have an imagination on how God created everything. I do not doubt it that God had made it I am just wondering what is the process for harnessing energy to atoms and molecules
cs – If you do not doubt, you do not “wonder.” You have the Bible to read and believe, end of discussion.
Max – with a word. I am wondering exactly where the natural world stops sometimes and the supernatural takes over.
What is light? How are dreams made? Why 5 digits on each hand? What is consciousness? Why feelings when mathematics is precise? What would it be like to see sound and hear blue? What determines a supernatural cause? Science does not deal with this because it is limited to natural causes are natural causes all there is? Hell no, far from it. There are tons of things that happen that cannot be repeatable, observable and testable. Supernatural events are such things.
cs – I’m not sure why you ask all these questions. My questions are Where does objective morality come from and how can we know it? I ask you because you brought it up and I want to know more. So far, obfuscation.
#1 If you are suffering obfuscation that’s because you deceive yourself. Lets examine what you say shall we?
I made the point that it takes “imagination” to believe in evolution. Whether you agree with it not is immaterial. You linked my “imagination” to believe things in the Bible to believing things in evolution. I don’t know how you don’t see the connection. However taking this a step further I never said that the Bible is a science book but when it touches on science I believe it to be accurate. Of course there are things in the Bible that are not science that’s what its all about, truth does not come from science. A supernatural explanation for the natural things around us that cannot be explained with natural processes.
#2 I have showed several times where you have misquoted the Bible. All you have to do is go down though and read. I responded to every misquote you misquoted sad to say it was all of them.
#3 Obviously you have not been reading what Greedy and I have been talking about in “abiogenesis” here is the meaning for FYI
#4 Interestingly enough as I predicted “your meaning” of the word “Wonder” and the “actual meaning” are quite different.
Calvins meaning:
Real Meaning
Ironically you bring this up in your closing
Its easy Calvin, “I wonder!”
Now I really think that you do not want to know about Objective Moral Values. Neither you or Greedy want to know, that would rain on your parade wouldn’t it? Greedy seems to think its Ok to kill children and sell your daughters for sex slaves subjectively, yet he is missing the point that it is wrong objectively. Even if that was written in the Bible which it is not, he is calling from his objective reason that it is really wrong. Now whether you believe if it exist or not is immaterial. Just like god, he exists whether you like it or not and so does Objective Moral Values.
Okay…evolution does not require imagination only requires one to stop dogmatically defending debunked hypothesis’ and take even a glance at the evidence.
Here we are discussing you third definition only (as this is a scientific prospect we will use the scientific definition) and no, evolution like science is based only from objective, verifiable, falsifiable, testable, resettable and unbiased evidence. I should have been more clear when I said that evolution is science, more accurately evolution is a scientific theory, more accurately evolution is a Biological theory concerning the diversity of life.
Why would you use your wisdom to chase after the riches of this world? Jesus commands us to give up everything and follow him. I couldn’t do it any more, so I don’t claim to be worthy of the title “Christian.”
Darwin’s idea (hunch) was possibly the most profound idea to cross a subjective mind. Scientists, biologists and even those of us who like to read science books for enjoyment, know that Darwin was not perfect. Anyone who thinks he was is uninformed.
The fact of evolution had been known for years. Darwin pointed us in a direction which explains what we see. He developed a theory (which is a good word!) about how the fact of evolution works. There is a fact we observe and a theory which explains it. peace
#1 Jesus never commanded me to give up everything. Where the hell do you come up with that?
#2. Yes I agree that Darwin’s idea worked on the subjective mind but he was only a source of irritation to those of us who believe in Objective Morality.
#3. Yes evolution was nothing new when Darwin was born this is well known.
Max – “Jesus never commanded me to give up everything.”
cs – He was talking to his disciples, a small group of dedicated followers. You claim to be a follower but your fruit is looking over ripe.
Luke 12: 30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
cs – Add all you want for context. I read the chapter.
Calvin let me ask you a question seriously. Why are you quoting from a book that you don’t even believe in? just for your enlightenment I will entertain your madness.
Now do you see that the Father knows you have need of these things. So if its coming to you from the father don’t turn it down or you are rejecting the fathers provisions. That would be like my kid refusing to eat supper, or refusing for me to buy her a house or a car. Just because I have it does not mean that I have not given. You are much mistaken. This is not a life of poverty as you suppose, it is a life of riches. Anyone in a successful business will tell you that you have to give as well as take. Sometimes you are given more, whats wrong with that? Just because Calvin thinks I have too much does not mean a hill of beans to me. I will not reject the fathers goodness to me and my family. I see why you are not a Christian anymore, you misinterpret everything!
Okay, so this conversation has fast crumbled from a discussion of Abiogenesis, Taxonomy, Evolution and Radiometric Dating to that of Religion and Personal Stories (of which I have contributed to). I would like to revise two points that I feel have been lost in this transition and revive the original goal of this post.
Origin of Life: Liz and Max are there any stages in Abiogenesis that you feel need addressing and explaining by either myself, Calvin or both, there is no shame in admitting that you do not understand the process many of my students struggle with such complex Chemistry, so if you feel that I should go over it then I will, however I will not unless you ask as it will take a long time and possibly need a rather large post on my behalf.
Evolution: Max I am confused what you mean by “Ape to Man” evolution as I know for a fact that you have had it pointed out to you on several times to you that humans are apes (more specificity “Great Apes” so named for our considerable size) in the same way that Tigers are Cats. However I think you are addressing the evolution between the common ancestor that we share with other modern “Great Apes” and “Hominids” or between other “Hominids” and humans specificity:
First I feel that if you wish to understand evolution then you could not have chosen a better grouping as because of the particular conditions that “Great Apes” tend to live in and because of their comparatively long life span (compared with other mammals of similar size) and low mutation rate that we might as well have a generation by generation fossil record of this particular grouping. Below is a well known picture showing a “simplified progression” (this is a line up of skulls showing the progression of one particular linage over time), A is a species known as “Australopithecus Afarensis” a well known Ape which shows many features of becoming a Hominid in its hip structure but many more features of being a true ape, G is a species known as “Homo Floresiensis” a considered by many to be the first true Hominid and N is a species known as Homo Sapien one of only three there with an enhanced frontal lobe.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg
Greedy – Calvin if I could ask you a question, I am pretty lost on this “ape to man” thing, I know he isn’t literal because we’ve had this discussion on YouTube before, men are apes. So he probably means something completely [different] to it’s literal meaning … but I cannot tell what it is. Do you know what he’s on about?
CS – I can only say what I have gathered from discussing with other people who use that phrase. They have two major misunderstandings. One is they have a straw man version of evolution which has a mother ape giving birth to a human.
The second is that they will not accept that in the over all picture, we -are- apes. They can’t stand that. Even though their Bible tells them so:
Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
I don’t think Max is that stupid, he’s had this pointed out to him on several occasions. I’m sure he means evolution from the common ancestor we share with Chimps or another Great Ape rather than from Apes to Apes.
We will wait then for Max to explain what he means by “ape to man.” thanks.
Okay, since I can only stay on this forum until the 20th I wish to clear up anything anyone has to ask.
If anyone has any questions about Biochemistry or Biology I would be happy to answer. This is not limited to Max and Liz either, Calvin if you wish to ask anything go right ahead, my only job here is to educate.
Regards Greedy
Thanks Greedy. I enjoy your comments and will probably not bother you with a direct question.
My job is to educate myself on this “objective” morality I keep hearing about. No one has been able to show me where this comes from.
Speaking of Max and Elizabeth, I wonder why none of the “hundreds” of viewers Max mentioned ever leave any comments.
I’m wondering why neither Max or Liz seem to leave any comments any more.
I just got back from a New Jersey business trip. I did not have any time to get back to you but I am here now with my dukes up, lol!
okay, do you have a question?
#10 – Do you take pleasure in telling lies or are you just so gullible that you believe any anti-religious lie you hear?
#9 – Are you only capable of mimicking and copying arguments you heard from Dawkins and other atheists?
#8 – What’s the reason that you continue to use racist atheists as viable sources, celebrate racist atheist biologists and racist/atheist countries?
#7 – Do you have any independent mind of your own or ability to question what other atheists say or think?
#6 – Why do you consider any criticism of atheists, atheistic arguments, or atheistic beliefs as “trolling” but not consider condemning, ridiculing, or making fun of religion as “trolling”?
#5 – Why have you intentionally remained silent in opposition to racism but not silent in opposition to Intelligent Design, Creationism, and many other things?
#4 – Why do you value high IQ as being worth more than contributions?
#3 – Why do you discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality?
#2 – Why are you an anti-science fanatic who strongly opposes free and open criticism, scrutiny, and questioning?
#1 – Who do you hate more, Jews or Muslims?
#10: (i)I have no lied once in this forum, if you believe I have please show me where
(ii) science is not anti-religious it’s simply objective, that is that it is based on evidence all of which supports Biological evolution
#9: I have never heard no argument from nor seen Richard Dawkins I personally do not approve of any of his work but I do comment on facts and only present them. Since science is international and all data supports each other and all articles are up for public scrutiny then scientific knowledge is global and therefore facts are global as well.
#8: (i) nothing about Atheistic Philosophy (of which I do not subscribe to) is racist in any sense of the word
(ii) I don’t think I have ever listed a source from an Atheist at all (most people are some kind of Theist) other than a couple of papers here and there.
#7: yes, that’s the entire point of peer review and the scientific method, and once again I do not subscribe to Atheistic Philosophy, your pulling this out of thin air.
#6: I do not in either case, trolling is when you bring up an old and demonstrably wrong argument, that has been disproved (yes I used proof, sue me) before. Or try to change the subject in order to avoid admitting your wrong.
#5: because racism I don’t think has ever came up in this discussion…or at least I’m not aware of it
#4: I don’t think I ever mentioned IQ, if I have please show me where and I will do my best to explain.
#3: because that my friend is called blind faith and cause one to be dogmatic, all science must be falsifiable and subject to change.
#2: I’m not, I am very pro-science I build my career around science. Science being based on free and open criticism, scrutiny, and questioning others and your own observations, so I honestly have no idea where you pulled that one from.
#1: I don’t hate anyone, much less groups of people…I don’t know how things are run there in America but here in Australia we run a very multicultural society, with many denominations not normally associated with western society in high quantities (21% Christian (mostly Catholic), 17% Non-Theist and the rest is composed of other religions including Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and others), I do not hate any grouping of people…where did you ever get that idea from?
CURSE MY INABILITY TO CHECK MY SPELLING AND GRAMMAR BEFORE HITTING “POST COMMENT”
Well all I can see is the analytics Calvin, i can’t see why they did not comment.
Okay, thanks. It -is- more interesting to reply to a larger audience than an individual. thanks. I trust your trip went well. Welcome back.
I should probably answer your question anyway because it loosely related to Biology.
Morality is never objective, even Christianity’s favourite “Thou Shall not Kill” firstly when read in context only applies to those of your own tribe, secondly while on a day to day basis humans will not kill each other, but when put into the right conditions most people will slaughter each other with little to no remorse.
The same can be said for any person and any “moral” value, even though they may not believe that they would studies show the opposite. This is a good thing, because what we call “morality” is encoded into our genes if it was objective then humans wouldn’t last long, those that were willing to steal to feed themselves (though obviously stealing all the time lead to a break down in group mechanics) didn’t starve to death as readily, same as those that under certain conditions were willing to kill (though obviously stealing all the time lead to a break down in group mechanics) they could defend their land and as a result did not starve as readily.
Wow are you way off the mark with this one! Have you ever heard of the good Samaritan? Or the story of Joseph in Egypt before those laws you are quoting were written down where adultery was objectively wrong? You are much mistaken here. If you are put into a predicament where you have to defend your family even if it means killing the intruder then it is righteous because you are protecting the innocent. However when they came to take Christ he even did not permit those who were with him to defend him. There is right and there is wrong that is not relative to your time and place and situation. Yes it is related to biology not because of evolutionary terms but because the maker of objective moral values is the same maker of organisms.
Of it’s circumstantial (as in the case of defending your family) then it’s not objective Max.
No, it is related to Biology (to be more specific genetics and taxonomy) because it is inherited, in other words, no God(s) required it is in our genes.
Max – Have you ever heard of the good Samaritan?
cs – Yes, he was good without being a Christian or a Jew. Just his subjective morality.
No that’s Objective Morality as Christ brought out. He was operating outside his community and belief system.
Max if he murdered someone, and that was okay under those conditions then morality (even if only around that one event if you ignore all of human history) is subjective, different things are right and wrong depending on the situation.
For example it was okay to kill them to save the family, but probably not okay to kill them if they were just walking down the street.
Under what situation is it ok to rape then murder a child? Take the stage greedy, i got to hear this!
When sacrificing the child to your desert God or someone’s daughter has been sold to you as a sex slave…during the time of the Old Testament of course.
However because I lack the knowledge of the Bible held by Calvin and obviously not yourself I cannot quote the passages.
Interesting that you think that is subjectively morally right Greedy. Your world really is a dark place. No where in the Bible does it say that if that’s what you are implying. I know that you are willing to accept Calvin’s Bible interpretations because they match your world view. I think that it is interesting that you are willing to accept Calvin for the BS he utters when it comes to the Bible with no investigation on your own part. Do you really care what it says? Well the answer is obvious and your answers are laughable.
Max – I know that you are willing to accept Calvin’s Bible interpretations because they match your world view. I think that it is interesting that you are willing to accept Calvin for the BS he utters when it comes to the Bible with no investigation on your own part. Do you really care what it says? Well the answer is obvious and your answers are laughable.
cs – Calvin has given 0 interpretations of the Bible. I have quoted it directly from the KJV. Please, show where I have misquoted or “interpreted” the Bible, or, retract this lie and apologize.
Calvin you have misquoted Scriptuire several times, here are a couple. First lets get the definition of “Misquoted” out of the way.
Calvin’s Biblical Misquotes Abbreviated!
You admit you are misquoting scripture here saying that he was “talking to a small group of dedicated followers” then you directed it towards me. Was I alive then Calvin? NO! you did misquote here! The other misquote is in your assumptions of my fruit “looking over ripe”
More Biblical Misquotes By Calvin
There are so many fallacies here I don’t know where to begin. Does it really have to mention “Church” here? All you would have to do is think for a couple seconds. Lets eliminate progressively what Paul is not talking about here. I think its safe to say he is not speaking about the bedroom apparel, but although Calvin may need this spelled out for him I think its self explanatory. Now since women worked back then very hard I don’t think that he is speaking of work attire. Since Paul is writing Timothy a fellow Christian who are members in the Church I think it is safe to say that he is speaking of the church because this is what they share in common. These people had many things going on in their lives not just the Church. They had shopping, school, chores, celebrations, holidays etc. However when they went to church there were different things expected of them as in any type of event and attire was one of those things.
Yes Calvin you are misquoting scripture again!
Max – “Calvin you have misquoted Scriptuire several times, here are a couple. First lets get the definition of “Misquoted” out of the way.”
cs – I agree to move this discussion to your religious forum. peace.
OK
Sacrificing to your desert God: God tempts Abraham (I think it’s Abraham)
Selling your daughter as a sex slave: Sodom and Gomorrah, you know the story where looking at a destroyed city will turn you into a pillar of salt.
“I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out unto you” (no idea how to reference the Bible)
I didn’t say I agreed with Calvin’s interpretation I just said that I cannot reference the Bible or any Holy Book other than the Vedas (Hindu holly text) and even then I only know a few quotes here and there. BTW how can one misquote scripture? From what I can see he is getting every single quote exactly right, misquoting is where one manipulates a quote, for example:
“He was a good person” changed to “HE was [not] a good person”
So you think that is subjectively morally ok, to sacrifice your son to a desert god and to sell your daughters as sex slaves? Here I thought you might be made of a stronger caliber than that. In both instances your application of the text is not just a little off. However I do believe that you answered my question about your attitude toward objective moral values. Yet I assumed this as well because of your background, you have no other choice but to comply. If Calvin deceitfully quotes scripture in a misapplied concept I have always been accustomed to calling that misquoting scripture. Yet I can see that you fulfill the exact embodiment of the meaning to misquote Scripture. Of course Objective Moral Values don’t exist to you, God does not exist to you either. I believe however that you are fooling yourself. You know that it is wrong objectively to murder and rape kids that is way you cowardly pointed to misquoting scripture. I know its a tough question but don’t you think its time to man up? Let me give you another try. Is it OK to rape and murder a child in any place any time or any situation?
In different cultures and contexts yes that is perfectly all right, just because you or myself may view something as barbaric or bad because of the values we hold does not mean that this applies to everyone all the time. The fact is that throughout History people did things that we now view as unexceptionable and we do things today that people in the past viewed as unexceptionable.
Moral values change with conditions in more cases rather than less this is referring to culture, for example in Fundamentalist Islamic areas it is not expectable for women to dress or act the way they do in most western areas, however conversely it is not expectable in western cultures for men to act the way they do in Fundamentalist Islamic areas… weather we like it or not what is right today may not be right in the future and was not right in the past, the only things humans can do as a species is develop our culture and do whatever is best for the individuals or whole depending on what society demands at that particular time.
I think the evolutionary doctrine is more dangerous than I could of ever possibly imagined. There is freedom in Christ and I see that is more apparent even the more so after speaking with someone such as yourself. The torments in evolutionary mind and insidious thoughts in all its glory with ill will towards man. What a dark place to be blinded on all four walls plagued day and night with what you believe to be reality. Sadness is incumbent upon me for a poor soul such as yours who chooses never to see the light of day.
Max – “Sadness is incumbent upon me for a poor soul such as yours who chooses never to see the light of day.”
cs – Please show evidence for a “soul” before you yammer on about such a thing.
There is actually a lot of documented evidence that souls do exist. Here is the scenario of just one such incident documented by Gary Habermas who is involved with much study in NDE’s [near death experiences] Just to make a long story short the little girl dies,is put on life supports and lies there for several days while the family makes that hardest decision in their life weather they should pull the plug or not. After some time, I can’t remember how many days later that the girl awakens and recalls facts that happened while she was dead. Now what is remarkable about the story is that the doctors documented what the girl said before she had any contact with the outside world after she awoke. the doctor was an atheist before this event She had said what her family had for supper the night of her accident, what her father was doing, what her mother was doing and recounted that there was 2 doctors present when she arrive at the hospital unconscious. Well everything said and done is that she was clinically dead at the time these events occurred miles away from her body. There is another account of a lady who died and after she was revived recounted that there was a blue tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital and they went and recovered it. Ok there are literally thousands of NDE’s but I am talking about documented evidence ones. If you are genuinely concerned in the existence of a soul there is a site that has many of these documented evidences
Now just to make sure that we are speaking of the same meaning of the work “Soul” here is the meaning as I understand it.
Okay, Max you’ve lost me…I have no idea what you are talking about.
Just because different things are okay at different points in history and I don’t ignore that fact does not mean that I’m in some kind of “dark place” I’m actually a very happy person most of the time…I would appreciate it if you didn’t stereotype me, thank you.
I think you lost yourself. Rape and murder of kids is not OK not in any lifetime. People stereotype themselves with twisted worldviews. I don’t see why you should be immune, I certainly am not. Remember this is your worldview that you are defending here. If you are looking for science to justify your worldview I think you are going to come up short here and that is my whole point.
Max – I think you lost yourself. Rape and murder of kids is not OK not in any lifetime. People stereotype themselves with twisted worldviews. I don’t see why you should be immune, I certainly am not. Remember this is your worldview that you are defending here.
CS – Is it objectively moral to offer your child if it saves millions of others from eternal torment? Or to offer your child to a god for winning a battle? Judges 11:29
Even in my subjective human morality, these things are clearly wrong, but you will defend them because your god did them. You will now explain why it is acceptable for a god to do it but not a human. This is why I don’t agree with you about “objective” morality. If gods are not bound to it, it is obviously not objective. “Remember this is your worldview that you are defending here.”
All I am doing is asking a question and you like Greedy love to avoid the issue. It don’t matter what God, God’s her, it, them.. Do you understand I am asking a question to you. All you are doing is setting up a straw-man and I am not going to fall for it. Just because someone else does it does that make it OK? Here is the question I have no need to spell it out because I am already typing it. When is it OK to rape and murder and innocent child 5 years old?
Max – When is it OK to rape and murder and innocent child 5 years old?
cs – In my subjective opinion, which is all I claim to have, it is never OK or right to rape or murder anyone. You seem to think that subjective morality means anything goes. That is not the case.
In my opinion, it is always wrong to kill one person for the sins of another. No strawman, that is what you say you believe. It drips with blood and is disgusting.
Well I am glad that you subjectively recognize that but objectively do you still think its ok?
Max – Well I am glad that you subjectively recognize that but objectively do you still think its ok?
CS – You are the one who claims knowledge of “objective morality”, I can’t answer about something I have not seen evidence for.
I can imagine a group of people thinking they have an objectively moral position because it was given by a god, but I can just as easily imagine a wicked god who would kill his own child and claim it was not only moral, but “good news.”
Then really you don’t know what Objective Morality is then do you? You have expressed it several times in saying that the Holocaust was bad. That we should not rape and murder the innocent no matter what lifetime we are in. You are expressing objective morality. Subjective morality is that it may be OK for them but not OK for you. Why is it that you cannot understand this?
No, rape and murder of children WAS expectable however in our current culture and context it is not.
Actually I’m looking at history, technically a Social Science but not a Science. Just because unlike you rational people don’t close their eyes, plug their ears and say “IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!” does not change the fact that in the past people did some things that today are considered barbaric or unacceptable and we do things today that people in the past find barbaric or unacceptable.
Calvin your stupid
Thanks.
there we go
Who chooses the thumbnail pictures which represent us? I like mine ok, but it seems everyone has a cartoon except Max, with that wonderful dimple.
it’s probably randomly selected or based on when they first commented (so that no two people end up with the same one)
as with the actual cartoons, they were probably either by default or a deliberate ploy by Max to make everyone else seem just a little bit silly except himself.
word (I agree)
I my live on the other side of the world Calvin but I do know some of you Yanks slang
Greedy actually you can get your own gravitar here http://en.gravatar.com/ and they will show up if you don’t like the one assigned to you. I don’t make these although they are intelligently designed! lol
GreedyCapybara7 8] ‘slang’
cs – Yes, it is slang. To me it is my daughters generation slang. My note was for those hundreds of viewers who might not know what it means. 8] =smiley face
To Greedy Capybara7 – Thanks to you I have learned the difference between Javelina (which I have seen) and Capybara, of which I had not heard. Thanks.
Just thought that you boys may want to see some stats. I posted this twice if you are wondering I had to blot out my acct#.
Thank you Calvin, if you want to know the name comes from when I was tending a breeding pair of capybara. During that time I was known as “greedy” because I had a large section of the facility to take care of compared to other people…eventually the capybara were the only animals in the area I was in charge of and from that comes my name.
I felt it useful on public forums as I do not like people looking up any of my work (all is public due to the peer review process) and unless you know me personally already it is impossible to obtain a name from.
Calvin my icon is linked my email. If you would like to learn more about gravitars that are linked with your email here is the link. http://en.gravatar.com/
Max – Calvin let me ask you a question seriously. Why are you quoting from a book that you don’t even believe in? just for your enlightenment I will entertain your madness.
long answer CS – Thanks for asking. I have been fascinated with the Bible since at least April 7, 1963. That is the date inscribed in my first Bible, presented to me by The Lawton Heights Methodist Church Vacation Bible School. Lawton Oklahoma. I read the parts the Sunday school teacher assigned and I listened to the preacher and took the program home to read more about his sermon in the verses he mentioned.
I was a believing Christian (at least I thought I was) forty years, reading the Bible during that time. At the high point of my involvement with the church I was in charge of the musical portion of an evening service. The preacher and an elder from the congregation approached me with the idea of giving more presentations and studying for the ministry. (They liked me.) That lead me directly to studying the Bible even more than I had. Things get a little fuzzy there as far as my memory of the different emotions I went through and mental gymnastics I used to stay a believer, but after a year I was sure I could no longer believe it. I could pick and choose, and I still do that. That is what you are doing.
short answer cs – I quote the Bible because I wasted 40 years of my life believing in immoral nonsense and I want to help anyone out of it if I can.
Luke 12: 30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
Max – Now do you see that the Father knows you have need of these things.
cs – I am ready to move this to your other forum, concerning religion. I will look for the link. thanks.
Although I do not agree with you that I am picking and choosing I do agree that this belongs in another forum. I have extended this invitation to you before here is the link again: Objective Moral Values Proves God Exists Please keep this in mind when you are speaking to me. #1 I do not go to church. You may question me about this if you like. #2. I reject probably over 90% of so called Christian Teachings #3. I believe in the Holy Spirit and have felt and seen its power in my life. #4 I use to be an Atheist and what moved me to this was a religious organization. Similar to yourself. #5 Letting the evidence lead me is important. #6. I am an undefeated Bible Trivia champ.
do you have any evidence for points 3 and 5 or are you just going to say so and we are supposed to take your word for it?
do you have any evidence for points 3 and 5 or are you just going to say so and we are supposed to take your word for it?
Yes I do actually yet it would not be enough to convince you, yet, it actually did happen and I witnessed the events. No they are not repeatable like the birth of my children are not repeatable but it still happened nevertheless. The event was unique in all in characteristics and my state of mind was sound. It was also as if I were mocking in disbelief when I uttered the challenge to an invisible force that I did not even believe in at the time and although shocking as the event was to me I discredited it for some time afterwards but the math is definitely there. There have been many instances in my life where I have seen the power. I will share one of those moments with you I guess that is undeniable to me.
When I was an atheist I had become that way from witnessing the madness of the churches and did not want to be identified with such a crazy band of people working and slaving for an imaginary madness. So I was an atheist for a number of years [I dont remember exactly how many] when this event happened. One day I was pondering over the question why people thought God existed as I drove. I had about 300 miles about 482 kmto drive that day for my work. Well I threw a few ideas back and forth in my head. One of the most perplexing questions to me is why are there so many religions if there is one God. Then a thought poped into my head where Jesus told his disciples to keep searching and keep knocking until they find… Well I kind of laughed about that and I said out loud in the vehicle. If you are God and you do exist there is 2 things I want to see. The things I requested were specific, I wanted a red car from Kentucky to cut me off, speed up, pull over and look at a map. The second thing that I wanted to see was a blue car up on jack stands and I wanted it to happen within an hour. Now I was thinking to myself this should not be too hard I am on the road and not asking for anything that would appear out of the normal to anyone except me. You could imagine my surprise when I had a red car from Kentucky cut me off. He stayed in front of me for about a mile or so then sped up and disappeared. I was thinking how foolish I was to believe such a funny request and felt kind of embarrassed actually yet no one was there except me. I proceeded to my exit where I exited the highway and proceeded down route 7 and lo and behold there that same car was off the side of the road looking at a map. I was bewildered at what I saw and the adrenaline was pumping though my body. I did not even stop to offer any help, looking back I feel a little irresponsible. Well as if that was not enough for me I said to myself, what about the blue car up on jack stands? Yes a 1/2 mile down that same road there it was an old blue car up on jack stands off the side of the road.
so…you don’t have evidence (evidence aceo-facto is testable) you have a testimony. A particular assertion easily interpreted or subject to change and based on ones personal belief about what happened and nothing else…yet you want an avid reader and Biologist to take you seriously without evidence of any sort? It’s not that you don’t have enough evidence…but that you have none!
do you have any evidence for points 3 and 5 or are you just going to say so and we are supposed to take your word for it?
I have had quite a struggle with the age of the earth and as you are well aware I reject the old world hypothesis. I was not always of this mindset even when I was a theist before I was an atheist I believed in the evolution theory. I laughed like everyone else who is not willing to take the evidence for a young earth seriously. After studying time clocks in the earth and moon I started to wonder how the evolutionary authorities would respond to such evidence. Bottom line is they didn’t. Now we have red blood cells from Dinosaurs that are suppose to be 65 million years old. We have a great study at Mt. Saint Helen which you yourself respond in the negative. I have seen dinosaur footprints with man footprints side by side in the same layer of strata in Texas. I have seen the coelacanth alive and well today which was suppose to be extinct for 65 million years. I have seen hundreds of feet of strata form in just hours when evolutionist preach that it takes millions of years. Rapid mountain ranges being formed strata vertical with no erosion marks. I could go on and on about outright fraud and lying on the part of evolutionist but I am content letting the evidence lead me. There is a famous quote “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” and I am sure that most evolutionist would agree with this quote. But is it really honest? You know I have to say that I know things appear older then they are. Starlight travel was a big problem for me for the longest time then I found out its an even bigger problem for evolutionist. I am a believer in science yet there is nothing in science that you cannot attribute to a designer. In everything there is a pattern of design and we would not see this if it was a blind watchmaker.
okay, since you’ve ignored every single thing I’ve said I will repeat!
THERE HAVE BEEN NO RED BLOOD CELLS FOUND FROM ANY FOSSILISED ANIMAL EVER!
What you are referring to are “round red micro-structures” that when a fossil was being annualised were suspended in the de-mineralising solution…this shit got out of hand very quickly, and now even when the original paper is shown to them (as in your case) people ignore it and push forward this point regardless.
You know what greedy I read everything you say no need to shout. However you are wrong. The Smithsonian which is a BIG supporter of evolutionary theory is reporting this. Not me or my creationist buddies! Here is the article and contrary to what you claim I can comprehend what I am reading. Here is the article straight from the horses mouth, they even bad mouth us creationist like they always do, I’m sure you will like that part! “Dinosaur Shocker”
No, you can’t it’s a chemical impossibility…fossilisation is where organic material is replaced by minerals of the surrounding environment.
I don’t blame you it’s a common misconception but no such thing exists…and no you don’t listen to what I say, this is why you frequently or deliberately mislead your audience by becoming false interpretor what I say or twisting my words…although I am curious about this article, my understanding was that such a sample did not exist but was hijacked by the media.
I know for a fact that blood cells were not found however my understanding of such soft tissue is that this is either an isolated observation or again a discovery hijacked by the media…I will do some research to see if this is the only observation of it’s kind…
Until I have completed such research I will reserve judgement…
Greedy I know its a chemical impossibility if you believe in an old earth hypothesis. I know what fossilization is, I believe in the flood story for crying out loud!
I do read what you say and how can I deliberately mislead my audience when I am referring them to a Smithsonian website?
You go ahead and do some research and see if it matches your old earth hypothesis! You will just try to fit it into your story just like everyone else does, your job depends on it!
Oh yeah while you at it take a look at this post. Here is some more evidence for you, documented evidence that Dinosaurs and Man dwelt together.
Forbidden History
No, I mean red blood cells don’t last 10 years, let alone a few thousand, let alone 68 million…and if you believe the flood story then you don’t know shit about fossilisation, no offence.
No, I mean when you are referring to what I have said in the past; “he injected dog DNA into jellyfish or something” = “We injected jellyfish DNA into rat stem cells when…” or “…Greedy does take some things [like Biology] on faith because it’s not mathematics” = “because Biology is not mathematics I do not need to take anything on faith”…
From what I can see, there is no peer-reviewed article on it, it is the only observation of it’s kind, samples are not up for re-testing and said sample is kept nowhere on public record. In other words, it’s dropped off the fact of the Earth.
No offense you say? lol your such a weirdo! Ok lets see if ol Max knows how fossilization occurs. Well how about water? How about pressure? and How about lack of oxygen? Then how about the remnants of the biological specimen being replaced gradually by minerals. Ok now I am going to go look at the dictionary and see how close I came.
Greedy do you think I could come over there and teach a class in your University? I really don’t think them kids are getting a good education over there.
Why do you have to be so sensitive Greedy? All what you write is here and written down anybody can read it, nothing is edited even your cussing unless you didn’t know that “shit” is a cuss word here. I know Calvin does not appreciate that kind of language but You say what you want to. I am definitely enjoying your comments.
since you can’t seem to listen to me I will repeat:
“…you don’t know shit about how fossilisation occurs…”
And no, you cannot come here and give a lecture any more then you can go into my lab and run my experiments for me. You lack a high school understanding of basic Biology, nobody is going to let you perform a lecture at an established University other than the students themselves so they can laugh at you.
Anyone can look up fossilization on the internet and see that I am right, just because you repeat that line over and over again is just stupid. Just curious does that work on your students? Repeating the same line over and over again like your hypnotizing them or something? The only laugh here is your comments and your rejection of the fact, evidence and worldwide definitions. If that’s the way your University operates I would not want to come there anyway. John MAcKay is closer though and has already lectured in your schools and universities. Oh and BTW I don’t care if your pissed off. “Evolutionist” is a word and its one that describes you! I am not going to ignore words and definitions just to suit you. Just because of your Argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem and your wrong I’m right attitude does not make you right at all! I have had several of my friends look at your comments, even the ones that are atheist that want to believe you see all the fallacy’s that you make.
Small point, despite the definition that Max pulled out of the dictionary Abiogenesis is not a discredited theory and never was. It is a relatively poorly understood process only compared to evolution because evolution is one of the most understood principals in science.
However if you have any problem with Abiogenesis then put up a case against it, show which of the chemical steps is impossible.
If you have a case against evolution then likewise put up a case against it, show the mechanism that prevents organisms from evolving beyond a set point.
Beyond that evolution is not a religion, nor is it a requirement for Atheism despite Max’s assertions . Even by your own definition Max evolution is science and not religion, and even by your definition Atheism is also not a religion. Get over it, you don’t get to chose what goes into which category! It is not up for discussion, there is no such thing as “Evolutionism” or “Darwinism”, there is no indoctrination because that requires a religion. The scientific community shares results globally if that’s what you mean, but the word you are looking for is “advancing” not “indoctrinating” society.
Ok just so everyone may know this is not something that I came up with here is the actual clip that came from the dictionary. Now if you want to dogmatically hold on to a teaching that has been dis-proven over and over again that’s OK but don’t call it science. If you really want to know why abiogenesis is impossible here is a great article that covers that subject. “Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible”
This is why I made it clear “despite to Max’s dictionary Abiogenesis in not a discredited theory”, and then as evidence you use…your dictionary, great.
First life began we think approx 3.8-3.6 billion years ago because these are the first fossils of microbes we find, that us not the primary question for Abiogenesis but what may at first find philosophical “what is being alive”. However if your not going to put up a case against any of the chemistry I recommend you look it up.
ITS NOT MY DICTIONARY GREEDY!
Here is a wonderful video put together by a Biology Professor that will communicate what I believe. Basically your preaching a fairy tale that has been discredited. The burden of proof is on you not me to prove that abiogenesis is happened, GREEDY I NEED SOME DAMN EVIDENCE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN1_4mMI-oU
The theory we are discussing is called “Abiogenesis” not “Spontaneous Generation”, that theory has been discredited decades ago…is this the theory you’ve been going on about?
We’ve been discussing two completely different theories! There are two key differences between “Spontaneous Generation” and modern “Abiogenesis” firstly SG requires that there are no organic materials on the Earth to begin with…where as we know this is not the case, organic material such as oils and nucleotides can form in non-organic solvents (like water) and are actually found on comets (balls or ice and rock that travel through space).
Where as Abiogenesis takes chemistry that we already know and uses that to build upon, yes it is a poorly understood theory area of Biochemistry however it’s weakness is not where you perceive it to be, getting life from organic molecules is the easy part, getting what we recognise as modern life from that is the difficult part…however assuming magic does not do anything except exchange one unknown for another…it’s a cheap and childish way to dodge a question.
Of course I don’t deny that the ingredients to make life are not here now. As far as Panspermia which you are referring to NOT Abiogenesis I think its a good study but far fetched. The mechanisms proposed for interstellar panspermia are hypothetical and currently unproven. I thought you only accepted evidence? lol
Thanks GCB. The old theories of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis have been discredited. So far, no completely satisfactory theory has replaced them.
Fortunately, some are interested enough to keep searching in that increasingly small gap between non-life and life.
LOL, Greedy said something to the effect that once one has found truth there is no more reason to search. I however disagree. I believe that I know who the gap is between life and non-life but that does not mean that the search is over by far. In contrast I think this makes life more fascinating. For example if we could figure out how to make life, using the materials provided to us of course, think of the creatures we could make!
Max, do me a favour don’t be an interpretor anything I say, ever!
No, the only thing one can create from organic chemicals would be very, very simply self replicating molecules. making life does not mean making multicellular, complex animals…for that the best way is to manipulate genetic material directly, in other words we need to artificially mutate and therefore evolve already existing organisms in a lab to create the type of things you are thinking of.
Such advances are far off, but with advances in genetics we are still closer than most might think.
Ok just for the record here is what Greedy said:
Here is what I got out of it in my reply to Calvin:
Now I cant help but see that is an accurate description of your statement. Now Greedy I cant help but noticed that you used the word “ever” with an “!” at the end of it. Usually that would indicate that I am speaking with a female. Now I am not really interested in your gender I just thought it was strange. However you do miss the concept here of conversation and what we get out of it. I of course do spend a certain about amount of time reading and trying to recall what you are writing to me. Sometimes I will think of it throughout the day and discuss it with others. For you to tell me not to interpret anything that you say “ever” “!” Would be fore me never to talk about our conversations. Now I really think that is ironic since everything that we type here is documented and if anyone is ever misquoted we can reference the conversations.
About your comment about “artificially evolve” like when you injected that rat with jellyfish genes. You do realize I call that “creation” right? I don’t think I have to explain why.
No, as through your depiction you imply that new bodies of research cannot come from this and once one has found “truth” then science stops…for example if one found “truth” considering the beginning of the universe one can still “search” in Biology, Chemistry and every single other field of science.
If you are going to reference something I’ve said quote me, don’t try to put your own spin on things because you’ll get something wrong.
You are the one getting confused here. Abiogenesis is not panspermia. Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. Panspermia is still a little out there. I think your the one getting things wrong! Where are you getting that my depiction is implying that there can be no further research? You evolutionist do this all the time and is a load of garbage! Science was built from creationism, we were first, not evolutionism!
No your getting confused, organic molecules…not life. We know that organic molecules form on comets as this has been observed.
Beyond that, I shall repeat one more time:
EVOLUTIONISM DOESN’T EXIST, IT’S A FALSE TERM!
No, science is not build from creationism, modern science is build from a philosophy known as “methodological naturalism” and by definition rejects any kind of creationism because creationism as per definition dogmatically defends old beliefs without testable evidence and despite all evidence to the opposite and thus hinders progress when allowed to control science…less we remember the Dark Ages. Creationism isn’t always bad, it offers support and confidence…however as a base point it proclaims it’s position correct from the get go and in the past has zealously attacked anyone that puts this into question.
Here it is straight out of the dictionary!
Why do you guys keep claiming things don’t exist when they do?
As far as you saying that we have no evidence for our beliefs I think is strange especially in light of our conversation about your grandfather and the evidence that you accept as truth for his previous existence. I too have a historical record for the things that I believe.
You know I know that its true that terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity but I think its unfair for you to point at religious zealots as a basis for your rejection of religious faith especially when science was built on Christianity. Jesus Christ never taught such things. My other point as well is that atheism has gotten us no where, think of the Atheistic leaders in the past and all the atrocities committed by them. Objectively they were all wrong no matter what time a place you are in they are wrong and what they did was wrong. 1+2 don’t =4
You yourself admit there are things that are wrong with certain parts of the evolutionary theory. There are parts of that theory which directly challenge what I believe in and what I understand to be true from historical literature and scientific inquiry. My conclusions like anyone else are not based on science alone and I never claimed that they are. I believe that I have also satisfied the argument that science does not necessarily always communicate truth and that there are somethings that are true that are out of the reach of science. Is there an unnatural world or an unnatural universe? Well that is what string theory is trying to explore. I think every man knows the true answer to that question there are only some of us who have the balls to say its so!
okay, I’ll rephrase that:
Abiogenesis by spontaneous generation is discredited the current Theory (pending) is Abiogenesis by organic progression…I think, it is a poorly understood chemical process. Think of it like this; Evolution by acquired characteristics (the only other theory concerning the diversity of life on the planet) has been discredited but Evolution by natural selection has not…the only difference here is that we know 100% how Evolution works (as far as we can tell) and comparatively we don’t know squat about Abiogenesis by organic progression…like I said even my students have to admit that they don’t understand the process.
Beyond that, Max if you insist in applying this “God of the Gaps” approach, then I advise that you place your God at the beginning of the Universe rather than the beginning of life as the gaps in that process are being filled in fast.
I don’t place “The God” anywhere, you don’t seem to understand this is not “My God” as you say. Unlike you I am not making this up as I go along. God is an entity that I cannot comprehend yet all the evidence tells me he is there. I don’t see blind unguided natural processes being responsible everything we see and observe. I also don’t think that you understand that I am not taking the God of the gaps approach. You are taking the “evolution of the gaps” approach that’s what the problem is here, I don’t understand how you cannot see it.
Max – Yes I do actually yet it would not be enough to convince you…
cs – Then it is not evidence is it? My prayer is for one day to go by with no children admitted to an emergency room. Why don’t you and a few friends get together and pray for something worthy like that? Blue car/ red car – It is hard to take you seriously at times.
I related a personal experience because I was asked a personal question. The event did happen I witnessed it. Whether you believe it or not really makes no difference to me. Yes I am serious, very serious. I don’t mess around Calvin I always get the job done. Let me ask you something Calvin what kind of evidence is acceptable to you? In other words you are not going to believe it unless you have this type of evidence that you are proclaiming is the only way to truth? Also you never did answer my question; “Is there absolute truth?”
Max – Now we have red blood cells from Dinosaurs that are suppose to be 65 million years old.
cs – Please give a citation for this nonsense. A scientist, not a journalist. thanks.
You cant be serious Calvin? I thought you were an avid reader, Here is a video just in case you missed the news! Yes this woman is a scientist and she believes in evolution!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynXwAo9V_pY
hang on…those pictures are from a textbook on anatomy not from a dinosaur…and no they found FOSSILISED SOFT TISSUE and what appeared to be “round red micro-structures” in the de-mineralising solution we’ve been through this…you can trace it to the original paper.
Look at the article I sent and the video. That’s the evidence!
FML, I can’t seem to find the original paper to save my life…I have a video by that scientific journalist on YouTube I showed you before but cannot actually be bothered to go through the papers to find the original.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE&feature=plcp&context=C343451bUDOEgsToPDskIXRHAEo1ToWcJv73EF0sv7
Greedy hold down the “ctrl” key and the “f” key on your keyboard if you are on a pc. You should see a search box appear, then type in “Journalist” then hit “Enter” you will see it highlighted. If you are on a mac hold the “command” key down and follow the similar process above.
I know, I’ve referenced the same person twice, because his responses are entertaining and relatively easy to find…sue me!
I don’t have to sue you I have enough money! lol. Seriously I did not see you post anything. Did you follow the instructions that I sent? It will help you find it fast.
Very good video Greedy, thanks. I’m reasonably sure I am already subscribed to that “voice” though I do not recall the name and have not seen that particular video. peacce
Red blood cells don’t last 10 years, let alone a few thousand as creationists claim or 68 million as the fossil was dated. No such cells were found, there was “round red micro-structures” but nothing like that.
OK Red blood cells can’t last forever. They have no nucleus. They have to squeeze through the teeniest of blood vessels all day long! The odds are against them– either they will run out of materials they need because they have no nucleus to make more, or they will squeeze through one too many teeny blood vessels and burst. They can only last so long. I meant to say “SOFT TISSUE”.
Not a single thing you said about red blood cells was correct aside from that they have no nucleus…but at least your trying, that’s all I can ask of anyone.
But it’s the same deal with soft tissue, except the time frame is extended slightly longer. It’s partly due to the fact that most organic molecules are classed as unstable, that is that if there is no mechanism to maintain “homoeostasis” they quickly break down…there are ways to accelerate this process but it cannot be stopped, this is why cells die and are disposed of.
What are you saying is wrong with what I said about red blood cells? You are telling me that they do not have to go though tiny blood vessels and that they can last forever? Or do you just like saying I am wrong all the time just because that is what you are accustomed to do?
All I am doing is relating an article that the Smithsonian published about finding dinosaurs with soft tissue. Take it up with them. They are the ones reporting it! All I am saying is that this is one of the time clocks with prove the young earth and the the geologic column is a farce! Again this is only 1 thing there are several!
Max – Let me ask you something Calvin what kind of evidence is acceptable to you? In other words you are not going to believe it unless you have this type of evidence that you are proclaiming is the only way to truth?
cs – There would be a report on the world news that no children were admitted to an emergency room.
Max – Also you never did answer my question; “Is there absolute truth?”
cs – In my opinion (which is all I claim to have), no.
You have got to be kidding me. Why are you always dodging the questions? How is that an answer or do you realize the obvious? I’ll rephrase the question, what kind of evidence convinces you of truth?
On the second part you don’t believe in absolute truth but how can you be absolutely sure you don’t believe in absolute truth?
Anything that is testable and repeatable.
We cannot, however “truth” is forbidden by the game of science because “truth” implies there is nothing more to learn
So does this means that you doubt that Charles Darwin ever existed, your great grandfather and grandmother. Did Gustave Eiffel build the Eiffel tower? Or maybe that Brisbane Australia is named after the river on which it sits which, in turn, was named after Scotsman Sir Thomas Brisbane. Are? In other word are these things true or not? They are not testable and repeatable.
First of all, all are testable…to a degree, for example the writings of my Grandfather and documents of his person all evidence of his existence…however to say that it is “truth” is intellectually dishonest. Humans are not perfect, and thus we always have something more to learn about everything. When playing the game of science you can never win, science does not know everything otherwise it would stop.
BTW, just about every single major city in Australia is huddled around some kind of water body and almost none are named after it, unlike you Yanks we are weird when it comes to naming our cities.
Sorry I’ve gotten sidetracked.
Well that’s exactly what I am getting at. We have documents. Now I could say that everything your grandfather wrote was a fairy tale and he never existed and its all just a hallucination because you want so much to believe that is your grandfather. I like your comment about science I think its an honest statement and one that I most certainly agree with. When playing the game of science you can never win, science does not know everything otherwise it would stop.
Well us Yanks are a little strange when it comes to naming our cities as well. They steal a lot from the old English towns like East Liverpool, London, Lisbon etc. Then they name towns after themselves like Houston, Smith etc. Well cities are usually beside bodies of water over here too. I think that is the case just about everywhere though because of the logistic issues when it comes to providing for mass quantities of people.
Oh yay, your getting how this works…that is correct, I don’t know my Grandfather existed but I have evidence sufficient to support the hypothesis. For example birth documents, etc. However because I have no grave to search and no way of providing further evidence then I cannot know.
Yes, science doesn’t know anything otherwise it would stop, as knowing something means that there is no further research to be done in that area. This is why the highest status something can be granted in science is Theory; Evolutionary Theory, General Relativity (Theory), Quantum Theory, String Theory (pending), etc.
I am getting how this works? Are you serious? You make me laugh so hard sometimes and your not even here to see it. You do realize the “evidence” that you are speaking of here is “NOT TESTABLE AND REPEATABLE”?
Just to refresh you memory I am not going to paraphrase because I know how you hate that. Here is a direct quote from you.
So you believe that your grandfather existed but, is it “testable and repeatable”? Historical evidence is not always “testable and repeatable” but that does not mean that it is not true.
Now I am not trying to bust your balls here I am just trying to help you realize there are things that are truth that are not testable and repeatable.
okay…I take that back…you are not getting how this works, so I’ll lay this out as simply as I possibly can. Words can and do have different definitions depending on the context for example, as we previously discussed theory can mean a guess in everyday context but in the context of science it means a grouping of all available facts and evidence. Similarly the word evidence has different meanings depending on the context.
Legal Context (during a court case): anything that can point to one conclusion over another
Scientific (during a scientific discussion): anything testable, refutable and repeatable
Here I was using the Legal definition, and I was wrong to do that. While I did not do it intentionally I could have mislead anyone who was reading this conversation and I prologise for that.
I asked you a specific question on what kind of evidence convinces you of truth and you said anything that is testable and repeatable. In light of our conversations I don’t see the need to try and insult me with you are going to “lay this out as simply as you possibly can”. You are not the authority here and your speech is all over the place. I don’t care if you have to change your answer but don’t blame it on me, I merely asked you a question. I think its ironic that you blame me for your stupid answer.
GreedyCapybara7
Oh yay, your getting how this works…that is correct, I don’t know my Grandfather existed
cs – The difference between Greedys’ claim and Max’ is that Greedys’ is “ordinary” (we all have grandparents) and Max’ is “extraordinary.” (Creator, god , saviour.)
My claim was still intellectually dishonest, I replaced the scientific definition of evidence with the legal definition when the context changed…however in a scientific sense no I don’t know that my Grandfather ever existed, all his papers and documents could have been faked in his name or my parent could be adopted…or I could not really exist.
Thank you that’s better!
Calvin do you understand what we are talking about? I asked Greedy what kind of evidence convinces him of truth. Whether I believe in a god or not is immaterial to this conversation.
Max – If Calvin deceitfully quotes scripture in a misapplied concept I have always been accustomed to calling that misquoting scripture.
cs – Calling it misquoting is one thing. Showing is something else. You have not shown where I have misquoted one word. Until you do, I will consider you a liar. Show where I misquoted or retract your lie and apologize.
You think this is the only post I have on the site? lol
If the statistics were not for this forum, why did you think we would be interested in them?
You stated something about a hundred people visited this site so I shared them. I know how many there are and where they come from and how long they stay on the site, like you are from around ****. visited the site **times and spend an average time of **** on each visit. I like statistics that’s pretty much dictates my work so I use them a lot.
MaximusMcc – “Calvin: Greedy and I came here because YouTube was limiting our comment space, we needed to be able to post longer comments. I would not say that Greedy is wasting valuable time
***evolution scam gets over hundreds of visitors ***
believers in evolution and non believers alike from all over the world. Like I said I am a web developer….”
I am really starting to think that you like arguing just for the sake of arguing. We had 3 different references about evolutionscam.com’s visitors and then I posted the stats. This is actually nothing, I don’t even promote this site. This site makes very little money but I am not into it for the money of course.
Calvin Quotes:
Max – Just thought maybe you boys might want to see some stats.
cs – I would rather see some of the 22,000 other viewers make an occasional reply.
There is no reply button on the message I want to reply to, so, I am quoting the first line for context:
Max – This is an exact quote from you Calvin! Your the twisted one here not me! Your also the hypocrite as well!
cs – It is an exact quote, what is your point? I stand by it. You are the one claiming to follow some objective morality all the while breaking the rules clearly set out for you. If I am being a hypocrite, please point it out and I will do my best to correct myself.
You quote Bible verses to condemn language or evil thoughts to someone who is a Christian and you don’t even believe in the Bible.
Max – You quote Bible verse to condemn language or evil thoughts to someone who is
cs – Christians say they follow Jesus and/or “believe” in the Bible. I quote the Bible to show them they do neither.
Max – …a Christian and you don’t even believe in a the Bible.
cs – I “believe” Bibles exist. I have three on the shelf over my left shoulder. My wife has at least two on her shelf in another room. I “believe” the Bible has some useful information.
Max – hyp·o·crite [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA noun a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
cs – Calvin feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, [atheism, the most hated and least trusted of all] his private life, opinions, or statements belie his public statements.
Calvin claims to be an atheist in public and in private.
Max….?
Max claims to be a Christian but his outward fruit shows he is not.
Calvin I really think you should stop smoking that stuff, your going nuts! I identify with Christianity and believe in the teachings of Christ. I think Christian teachings are profitable in more ways than one. Your accusation is strange.
lets change that around and see what it sounds like.
Calvin claims to be an Atheist but his outward fruit shows he is not.
Now I don’t know what your vision of Christianity is or what you think Christians should do but if your truly an Atheist I find it hard to believe that you are even remotely concerned about this issue. We Yanks have a term up here its called being a “Ball Buster” and if you get your kicks doing that I guess there is nothing wrong with that. May be your an Atheist because you don’t have anything to live up to or for? May be you like to make the rules as you go? I really don’t know what your reasons are for being an Atheist but as far as I have seen here by your comments in this forum, there is no good reason.
Max – I think Christian teachings are profitable in more ways than one. Your accusation is strange.
“Max claims to be a Christian but his outward fruit shows he is not.”
lets change that around and see what it sounds like.
Calvin claims to be an Atheist but his outward fruit shows he is not.
cs – That would be great. Since atheists are usually thought of in the negative, then my fruit, according to you, seems positive. thanks.
Max – “…if your truly an Atheist I find it hard to believe that you are even remotely concerned about this issue.”
cs – fyi The word “atheist” only needs to be capitalized when it comes at the first of a sentence.
I am interested in people who claim to be Christian. It is my hobby. I collect their words and see if they match up with the teachings of Christ. If not, I call their bluff.
So you are the Christian police?
1. “well I really think that you are being unfair in your judgment here. I am reading everything you are putting down hell, I have even research a thing or too and quoted from your own side of the fence. You accuse me of sticking my fingers in my ears and going la la la la la la la la. Yet at the same time I am responding and debunking most of what you say.”
You have yet to put forward any case that could discredit anything I have said so far and if you do actually read anything I say then why is it that you bring up the same dead arguments and false assertions after we have already dealt with them?
2a) “You did not discredit anything your just wrong.”
Not a single case you have brought forward has not been discredited by myself or Calvin, get over yourself! Like all of us you can be and are wrong, pretending like it hasn’t been dealt with doesn’t change the outcome,
2b) “How low are you going to go here to try an convince yourself that just because I don’t see thing the way you do I am not playing with a full deck as it were? Talk about intellectually dishonest you don’t even have a Biblical knowledge by your own admission and you recommending a faith?”
Okay, I’m going to call your bluff can you please trace humans from say… eukaryotes through taxonomical groups? An easy task for anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the subject.
3(i) “Well thank you for going through it slowly and step by step but it really was not necessary. I am glad though that you finally realize that evolutionist are taking the evolutionary theory on “Faith”. I will readily admit that some parts of evolution are true because I do know how they work However what I am challenging here is that I don’t think for the most part they consider all the evidence. In fact they turn a blind eye to it all the time. This is my problem with evolutionist, I have no problem with scientist just evolutionist. You see Calvin badgering me that because I drive I car I need to thank evolution and that I shouldn’t question it. It’s this mentality that I am sick of, evolution is a faith and a religion and I thank you for confirming that I truly do!”
How can you say something so stupid and still have enough brain cells left to type? Not a single thing in that entire response was even remotely correct!
(ii)Let me spell something out for you.
1. Things look designed. (opinion and not true, if things were designed then vestigial features, junk DNA and genetic ancestral viruses should not exist)
2. There are natural processes (yes, evolution is a natural process, very well understood by…most people)
3. Natural processes look designed (opinion and no, “the universe has exactly the properties we would expect if at the bottom of it there was no design, no purpose just blind, uncaring indifference” Steven Hawking)
4. There are forces that guide natural processes (known as the Electro-Magnetic force, Strong force, Weak force and Gravity…none of these are supernatural)
5. These forces are not visible (they are however observable, just because something does not reflect light and is therefore invisible does not mean that it cannot be observed)
“The fallacy that you fail to see is that you have assumed that natural processes is all there is. I consider both the natural and unnatural and logically so because there are even natural things that cannot be proven with science like the existence of your great great grandfather. I refuse to hold a blind eye to these types of things as well as considering supernatural explanations. There is nothing wrong with disciplining ones self and focusing on one thing but when you are blind on purpose that’s when I have a problem with the agenda. The irony here is that you are accusing me of not understanding evolution and yet at the same time you say its simple and anyone who spends 15min the the wikipedia will get a good understanding. BTW I know I don’t get to make the rules I believe in Objective Moral Values, remember?”
Correct, anyone that spends 15min reading the Wikipedia article would surpass you in their understanding of evolutionary theory…me talking to the guy that thinks that if evolution were true we wouldn’t see modern animals in the fossil record
4. “Well I don’t think that we are wrong I think you are. Remember the logic you presented to me? here it is:
for example if you were to say that if you had an apple it is evidence for a dinosaur making apples then I would recommend you adjust your position to one that has more apples…if that makes sense?
Why don’t you apply that to your whale evolution?”
Clearly you are not paying attention or you could not make sense of my rather poor attempt at a metaphor…either is acceptable and expected from you. All I am saying is that if you are using fulfilled prophesy as evidence for your particular holly book then would it not be more intellectually honest to shift to that with more fulfilled prophesy like Islam over Christianity?
5. “Well to clarify, the answer is obvious of course to me and other theist. The answer is not obvious to naturalist, evolutionist etc. We all have questions which make the subject ambivalent, why would there be a need for faith if God were not ambivalent in some ways? Sure this sounds edgy and some such as yourself I assume just don’t like the thought of it. Yet I believe it is true because we have to have freedom. It’s actually a perfect scenario.”
Okay, this I can answer. Believing something no matter how deeply is not the same as knowing, having faith is not the same as finding evidence, cherry picking scenarios is not the same as looking at all available data. That is the difference between you and myself, where as you proclaim knowledge as believing I know better, where as you have faith I have evidence, where as you cherry pick scenarios to suit your hypothesis I use all available data to formulate a theory.
Beyond that I have but a small message:
EVOLUTIONIST IS NOT A WORD, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING IT. YOUR ABUSE OF THE ENGLISH LAGRANGE IS STARTING TO PISS ME OFF!
I think its time for you to go take a chill pill. I have proven over and over again my points anyone can read them over. Just because you reject Dictionary definitions and other bonafide research and make up your own definitions does not mean that your right. GET OVER YOURSELF!
Max, we’ve been through this, calling someone wrong is not enough. One must put up a case against the claim or the evidence supporting the claim in order to be taken seriously.
Holy balls man, whats wrong with you? You accuse me of not reading your comments and here all the time you were not reading any of mine! I’m winning this argument because I am right not just because you are wrong. You see the way this works here is that you have to provide evidence with references to support your claims. You can’t just make them up as you go along and pretend your the authority because you simply are not. By the way you misspelled “Eykarya” its Eukaryote, it might do you some good to look up the information. I really don’t mind if things are misspelled from time to time at least I can make out what you say. Now I don’t mean to bust your balls so much but you need to come down to earth here.
cs – Max, please calm down and take a few minutes to think about what the words “Holy balls”, mean to you. I am trying not to think of it, but it is hard when someone brings it up. Holy means _____________, balls means _____________? Am I being strange for seeing an image of a gods genitalia? Is it really just me? Your language is getting worse rather than better. Please don’t run me off with your rudeness. peace
Max – You see the way this works here is that you have to provide evidence with references to support your claims.
cs -We agree here.
Max – “By the way you misspelled ….”
cs – Don’t go there, you are such a huge target for spelling and grammar lessons. Show the man where he was wrong in any of the connections he showed.
Max – “…but you need to come down to earth here.”
cs – Leave out the ad hom and the genitalia and state your point.
I think greedy is doing a good enough job here Calvin. Quit trying to be the christian police. You an atheist for crying out loud! Yes Calvin my balls are holy and made by God.
And once again you refuse to read my comment, but feel the need to comment anyway. No, all you do is profess that I am wrong, ignore all evidence to the opposite, present a bad case for your “argument”, watch it get debunked, ignore the fact that it has been debunked and then bring it up again later as if it hadn’t been dealt with.
I did not misspell Eykarya, that is the name of the classification. It is commonly called Eukaryote
for the same reason the division Anamilia is commonly known as Animals. It is the Latin name and thus the name for that classification but not it’s common name, for example the proper name for Humans is Homo-sapien, does that mean that our species name is incorrect because it is not the one commonly used? No, because that is the scientific name and when discussing scientific classification one uses such names!
Try looking it up for yourself, instead of constantly calling bullshit at every single fact that does not agree with your preconceived notions about reality because almost all of them are wrong!
I think it would be better talking to you if you accepted definitions that we who speak the English language understand them to be. You continually change things and definitions so I don’t know how to take you sometimes. I am pretty much a straight shooter when it comes to my points and I would have no problem debating you on this issue and winning too. Here is the problem, you are not considering all the evidence.
#1 you don’t have enough time for your theory even on an evolutionary scale not even 20 billion years is enough time for everything to happen naturally. ref(a) ref(b)
#2 You take Evolution on faith because you have never observed one creature turning into another creature [macro-evolution] you simply say there is “no mechanism” so your faith is that science will not find the mechanism naturally. You observe adaptations and assume that this continues as in your Eukarya illustrations. ref(a) ref(b)
#3. You have not debunked anything except that it was soft tissue found in a t-rex not red blood cells which I corrected by the way.
#4 You fallaciously keep claiming that I am ignoring the evidence, I am not. I am looking at all the evidence here is an example. If “A” is true and “B” is false they do not equal truth when added together collectively. I know that you think people are idiots and none of their testimony is reliable but all you have for your science is testimony of other people. People however are not idiots and there are good trustworthy people out there who let themselves be guided by objective moral values. They don’t make up the rules as they go or as society politically and socially lets them. There are people that actually believe in truth and are concerned with that subject. There is evidence that we have a soul, documented evidence and I am sure that you did not even investigate when I gave you references because to you people are idiots. If your faith is in science alone then you are not ever going to understand truth.
I’m actually going to have to pretend like I’m taking you seriously again aren’t I?
#1 ” you don’t have enough time for your theory even on an evolutionary scale not even 20 billion years is enough time for everything to happen naturally.”
We’ve been through this before; 4.6 billion-4.8 billion years is plenty of time for evolution, there are approx 111-120 mutations per human zygote at conception (most are natural), you really don’t have a case here.
#2 “You take Evolution on faith because you have never observed one creature turning into another creature [macro-evolution] you simply say there is “no mechanism” so your faith is that science will not find the mechanism naturally. You observe adaptations and assume that this continues as in your Eukarya illustrations.”
We’ve been through this before, new species form more commonly than one might think; the Apple Maggot Fruit Fly (R. pomonella), Madeira island house mice (so recent it has yet to be classified with a scientific name) and a Radish and Cabbage hybrid (hybridisation but still technically a new species). Nothing in science other than some branches of Mathematics is taken on any faith, we’ve been through this before as well, bringing up a point that has already been dealt with and debunked before does not add credit to it.
#3 “You have not debunked anything except that it was soft tissue found in a t-rex not red blood cells which I corrected by the way”
We’ve covered this as well, I have debunked all your claims aside from soft tissue, I still cannot find the original article but from what I can find it is “fossilised soft tissue” and not soft tissue itself, a rare find but not unique or impossible.
#4 “You fallaciously keep claiming that I am ignoring the evidence, I am not. I am looking at all the evidence here is an example. If “A” is true and “B” is false they do not equal truth when added together collectively. I know that you think people are idiots and none of their testimony is reliable but all you have for your science is testimony of other people. People however are not idiots and there are good trustworthy people out there who let themselves be guided by objective moral values. They don’t make up the rules as they go or as society politically and socially lets them. There are people that actually believe in truth and are concerned with that subject. There is evidence that we have a soul, documented evidence and I am sure that you did not even investigate when I gave you references because to you people are idiots. If your faith is in science alone then you are not ever going to understand truth.”
As also previously discussed you are not, simply cherry picking cases that agree with your particular religion and rejecting everything else as if it isn’t happening in no universe is considered looking at “all the evidence”. We’ve been through objective moral values as well and established that they do not exist as you understand them and we’ve been “science is testimony of other people”, science is testable data and nothing else. We’ve been through this before as well, science does not require faith in anything other than certain branches of mathematics (which more often than not do not apply to science directly but stay within the realm of mathematics). You claim there is evidence for a soul…share it, please, if such a thing were true it would surely be one of the great discoveries of modern science.
I don’t think you are serious I think you have a great imagination though.
1. I think the burden of proof is on you not me. To say that I do not have a case here is just garbage. This is going to be a lengthy response so I will respond point #1 in one post.
Abstract: A recent attempt was made to resolve the heretofore unaddressed issue of the estimated time for evolution, concluding that there was plenty of time. This would have been a very significant result had it been correct. It turns out, however, that the assumptions made in formulating the model of evolution were faulty and the conclusion of that attempt is therefore unsubstantiated.
[This post will remain at the top of the page until 00 hours Tuesday May 31. For reader convenience, other coverage continues below. – UD News]
The standard neo-Darwinian theory accounts for evolution as the result of long sequences of random mutations each filtered by natural selection. The random nature of this basic mechanism makes evolutionary events random. The theory must therefore be tested by estimating the probabilities of those events. This probability calculation has, however, not yet been adequately addressed.
Wilf & Ewens [2010] (W&E) recently attempted to address this issue, but their attempt was unsuccessful. Their model of the evolutionary process omitted important features of evolution invalidating their conclusions. They considered a genome consisting of L loci (genes), and an evolutionary process in which each allele at these loci would eventually mutate so that the final genome would be of a more “superior” or “advanced” type. They let K-1 be the fraction of potential alleles at each gene locus that would contribute to the “superior” genome. They modeled the evolutionary process as a random guessing of the letters of a word. The word has L letters in an alphabet of K letters. In each round of guessing, each letter can be changed and could be converted to a “superior” letter with probability K-1.
At the outset they stated the two goals of their study, neither of which they achieved. Their first goal was to “to indicate why an evolutionary model often used to ‘discredit’ Darwin, leading to the ‘not enough time’ claim, is inappropriate.” Their second goal was “to find the mathematical properties of a more appropriate model.” They described what they called the “inappropriate model” as follows:
“The paradigm used in the incorrect argument is often formalized as follows: Suppose that we are trying to find a specific unknown word of L letters, each of the letters having been chosen from an alphabet of K letters. We want to find the word by means of a sequence of rounds of guessing letters. A single round consists in guessing all of the letters of the word by choosing, for each letter, a randomly chosen letter from the alphabet. If the correct word is not found, a new sequence is guessed, and the procedure is continued until the correct sequence is found. Under this paradigm the mean number of rounds of guessing until the correct sequence is found is indeed KL.”
They gave no reference for such a model and, to my knowledge, no responsible person has ever proposed such a model for the evolutionary process to “discredit” Darwin. Such a model had indeed been suggested by many, not for the evolutionary process, but for abiogenesis (e.g., [Hoyle & Wickramasinghe 1981]) where it is indeed appropriate. Their first goal was not achieved.
They then described their own model, which they called “a more appropriate model.” On the basis of their model, they concluded that the mean time for evolution increases as K log L, in contrast to KL of the “inappropriate” model. They called the first model “serial” and said that their “more correct” model of evolution was “parallel”. Their characterization of “serial” and “parallel” for the above two models is mistaken. Evolution is a serial process, not a parallel one, and their model of the first, or “inappropriate”, process is better characterized as “simultaneous” than “serial” because the choosing of the sequence (either nucleotides or amino acids) is simultaneous. What they called their “more appropriate” model is the following:
“After guessing each of the letters, we are told which (if any) of the guessed letters are correct, and then those letters are retained. The second round of guessing is applied only for the incorrect letters that remain after this first round, and so forth. This procedure mimics the ‘in parallel’ evolutionary process.”
W&E were mistaken in thinking the evolutionary process to be an in-parallel one — it is an in-series one. A rare adaptive mutation may occur in one locus of the genome of a gamete of some individual, will become manifest in the genome of a single individual of the next generation, and will be heritable to future generations. If this mutation grants the individual an advantage leading to it having more progeny than its nonmutated contemporaries, the new genome’s representation in the population will tend to increase exponentially and eventually it may take over the population.
Let p be the probability that in a particular generation, (1) an adaptive mutation will occur in some individual in the population, and (2) the mutated genome will eventually take over the population. If both these should happen, then we could say that one evolutionary step has occurred. The mean number of generations (waiting time) for the appearance of such a mutation and its subsequent population takeover is 1/p. (I am ignoring the generations needed for a successful adaptive mutation to take over the population. These generations must be added to the waiting time for a successful adaptive mutation to occur.) After the successful adaptive mutation has taken over the population, the appearance of another adaptive mutation can start another step.
In L steps of this kind, L new alleles will be incorporated into the mean genome of the population. These steps occur in series and the mean waiting time for L such steps is just L times the waiting time for one of them, or L/p. Thus the number of generations needed to modify L alleles is linear in L and not logarithmic as concluded from the flawed analysis of W&E.
The flaws in the analysis of W&E lie in the faulty assumptions on which their model is based. The “word” that is the target of the guessing game is meant to play the role of the set of genes in the genome and the “letters” are meant to play the role of the genes. A round of guessing represents a generation. Guessing a correct letter represents the occurrence of a potentially adaptive mutation in a particular gene in some individual in the population. There are K letters in their alphabet, so that the probability of guessing the correct letter is K-1. They wrote that
1– (1 – 1/K)r
is the probability that the first letter of the word will be correctly guessed in no more than r rounds of guessing. It is also, of course, the probability that any other specific letter would be guessed. Then they wrote that
[1– (1 – 1/K)r]L
is the probability that all L letters will be guessed in no more than r rounds. The event whose probability is the first of the above two expressions is the occurrence in r rounds of at least one correct guess of a letter. This corresponds to the appearance of an adaptive mutation in some individual in the population. That of the second expression is the occurrence of L of them. From these probability expressions we see that according to W&E each round of guessing yields as many correct letters as are lucky enough to be guessed. The correct guesses in a round remain thereafter unchanged, and guessing proceeds in successive rounds only on the remaining letters.
Their model does not mimic natural selection at all. In one generation, according to the model, some number of potentially adaptive mutations may occur, each most likely in a different individual. W&E postulate that these mutations remain in the population and are not changed. Contrary to their intention, this event is not yet evolution, because the mutations have occurred only in single individuals and have not become characteristic of the population. Moreover, W&E have ignored the important fact that a single mutation, even if it has a large selection coefficient, has a high probability of disappearing through random effects [Fisher 1958]. They allow further mutations only in those loci that have not mutated into the “superior” form. It is not clear if they intended that mutations be forbidden in those mutated loci only in those individuals that have the mutation or in other individuals as well. They have ignored the fact that evolution does not occur until an adaptive mutation has taken over the population and thereby becomes a characteristic of the population. Their letter-guessing game is more a parody of the evolutionary process than a model of it. They have not achieved their second goal either.
Thus their conclusion that “there’s plenty of time for evolution” is unsubstantiated. The probability calculation to justify evolutionary theory remains unaddressed.
References
Fisher, R. A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford. Second revised edition, New York: Dover. [First published in 1929]
Hoyle, F. and N. C. Wickramasinghe, (1981). Evolution from Space, London: Dent.
Wilf, H. S. & Ewens, W. J. (2010) There’s plenty of time for evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107 (52): 22454-22456.
[*] This paper is a critique of a paper that appeared recently in the Proceedings National Academy of Sciences USA and rightfully should have been published there. It was submitted there and was rejected without review and the reason given was that the Board did not find it “to be of sufficient interest for publication.” When I noted how unreasonable this reply was, the editor replied that the paper “makes some obvious and elementary points of no relevance to the paper, and in my opinion does not warrant publication.” The Board then refused to comment further on the matter. It was clear that the Board’s rejection was not on the merit of the substance of the paper but for some other, undisclosed reason.
Point #2. According to wikapedia a source that you recommended the Apple maggot has been around for quite a while and was discovered hundreds of years ago.
Just because you discover something does not meant that it is new or evolving. That would be like me walking up to an oak tree and because it was the first time I saw it I declared that it was a new species. Give me a break.! So your point #2 is DEBUNKED!
Point #3. OK
Point #4. Actually I read something last night that might just change my view on the age of the earth. It’s evidence that convinces me not imagination. Funny thing about it, its cracks in a dried up mud puddle that may change how I view the age of the earth. Let it be known though that it was never insults from evolutionist or their grand imagination that is leading me to this hypothesis its just facts.
I will issue a challenge to all on the forum, since Max has previously claimed on being educated on the subject of Evolution and Biology in general and I know better than to take peoples word on such matters I feel that such a challenge is needed.
Could anyone here aside from myself, trace humans through taxonomical divisions from eukaryotes WITHOUT looking it up (not that this will help in most instances)?
If that is too difficult (it should not be) could anyone please tell me all significant empirical divisions in taxonomy?
This is not only for the creationists on the forum but everyone, I know that perhaps some will give a limited response but I am so sure that I will not get perfectly correct answers for both questions that I will record myself eating my shoe and post it on this forum if anyone can give a correct answer (or close to it) for both questions WITHOUT looking it up.
No matter what anyone says here you are not going to admit they are right. You say the dictionary is wrong, everybody is wrong but you in your mind. It does not matter if they do research or not or even if they copy and paste something from an encyclopedia as I have done, you are going to still not learn a damn thing because of your attitude! you know I think I am going to have a movie produced based on this entire conversation!
So you can’t trace humans from Eukaryotes?
That’s okay most people can’t, like I said most people have Buckley’s chance of knowing anything about Taxonomy…if you are interested however:
Starting with Eykarya (cells with a nucleus)
One subset of this is Opisthokonta (organisms which at one stage in their life have a single rear flagellum)
One subset of this is Metazoa or more commonly known as Anamilia (which at some stage in their life are multicellular and ingest organic material in order to survive)
This is then divided into sponges (Proifera) and everything else but sponges (Erumetazoa)
One subset of Erumetazoa is Bilateria (animals that at some stage in their life cycle are bilaterally symmetrical)
One subset of that is Coelomata (animals with a tubular internal digestive cavity)
One subset of this is Deusterotomia (animals where the anal opening develops before the mouth or without a mouth)
One subset of this is Chordata (animals with all this and a spinal cord)
One subset of this is Craniata (animals with a skull)
One subset of this is Verterbrata of Vertebrates (with a segmented spinal column)
One subset of this is Gnathostomata (Vertebrates with all this plus a jaw bone)
One subset of this is Teleostomi (Vertebrates with a calcified skeleton)
One subset of this is Osteichthyes (commonly known as bony fish)
One subset of that is Sarcopterygi (Bony Vertebrates with lungs and higher developed forelimbs)
One subset of that is Stegocephalia (Bony Vertebrates with highly developed limbs and fingers on the ends of these limbs)
One subset of that is Tetrapods (Bony Vertebrates adapted for four limbs)
One subset of this is Anthracosauria (thick skinned terrestrial tetrapods)
One subset of this is Amniota (those with an Amnion which is a leathery casing for the developing foetus or egg)
One subset of this is Saurapsida (reptiles)
One subset of this is Diapsidae (reptiles with two holes in their skull for the attachment of muscles)
One subset of this is Neodiapsida (reptiles with higher developed hips)
(here I am going to skip a few as here things get…messy)
One subset of this is Therapsida (commonly known as mammal like reptiles these have mammalian hips)
One subset of this is Theriodontia (those with “mammalian brains”)
One subset of this is Cynodontia (those with specialised teeth)
One subset of this is Theria (those with lactic (milk) glands, commonly known as mammals)
One subset of this is Eutheria (placental mammals)
One subset of this is Primatomorpha (bats and primates)
One subset of this is Primates (well…primates)
One subset of this is Monkeys, one subset of this is Old World Monkeys, one subset of this is Apes, one subset of this is the Great Apes, one subset of this are the African Apes, one subset of this are Homonids, one species of that is Humans.
This linage is confirmed with Taxonomy and Anatomy from the bottom up but also confirmed from the top down through Genetics. I was not trying to trick you only get you to admit that you like most people don’t know anything about Taxonomy. Oh yes, and the only significant empirical level in Taxonomy is “species” as it is the only one that can be objectively verified.
To be perfectly clear, I didn’t expect anyone to get the terms correct, nor the order correct, nor every single stage unless you were in my class (Biology joke). A simple attempt with all significant orders and vindicated by anatomical features with common names would have done perfectly.
Taxonomy is a branch of biological science involved with classifying organisms based on characteristics they share in common. Using morphological, behavioural, genetic and biochemical observations, taxonomists identify, describe and arrange species into a hierarchical system of groups.[1] Because taxonomists also identify and name organisms, it could be argued that Adam was the first to perform this aspect of taxonomy.[2]
The Linnean Taxonomic Hierarchy, which is still used today, was developed in the 18th century by Carolus Linnaeus. As Carolus Linnaeus’s work Systema Naturae was published over 100 years before Charles Darwin published his theory, his writings do not mention or makes any references to evolution. Linnaeus was a deeply religious man, believing his work “would reveal the Divine order of God’s creation”. Many new taxonomic groups have been added since Linnaeus first developed the modern system, and today evolutionary relationships dominate taxonomy.
Taxonomy originally involved grouping organism based on the easily observable characteristics they share in common (morphology). All organisms assigned to a particular group possess the same features. Each group is then subdivided so as to further distinguish its members based on their differences. This hierarchy of groups and subgroups provides a systematic method for classifying and naming organisms ranging from very general similarities to ever increasingly detailed.
Since the theory of evolution gained widespread acceptance among scientist, a branch of taxonomy known as cladistics has become increasingly popular. Cladistics assumes common descent, and arranges organisms into a tree of ancestral descent based on the proportion of characteristics that organisms share. Both evolutionary assumptions and biochemical examinations continue to force modification on accepted taxonomic names and arrangements.
The taxonomic system is hierarchical. All of the organisms in a particular group (i.e. Kingdom) possess certain characteristics that unite them together and distinguish them from other groups. Each group can likewise contain several subgroups, which in turn are often divided into even smaller groups. For example, within each Kingdom there are usually several groups called Phyla. These Phyla all share some broad characteristics in common, placing them within the same Kingdom, but they can be distinguished from each other by more subtle variations. And within each Phylum, there are usually several Classes that are united by characteristics into the same Phylum, but also distinct in other ways allowing them to be group separately. The species is the smallest grouping of organisms, although there can be many varieties or subspecies.
It should also be noted that most of the levels shown in the hierarchy above have been further subdivided or elevated. Common prefixes used with the root taxonomy designations include: sub, infra, super, supra, etc.
Kingdoms
Until recently, The Kingdom level was the broadest grouping of organisms, of which there were 5 generally recognized. For many textbooks, these 5 will still be seen (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Monera). More recently Monera was divided into Eubacteria and Archaea(formerly known as Archaebacteria) rendering six kingdoms. Subsequently, Archaea and Eubactera (now Bacteria) were elevated along with Eukaryota to the level of Domains. In the following table, the 6 Kingdom system is displayed, although individual pages will identify the latter two as domains.
Species
The specific scientific name given to any organism is a binomial comprised of the names of the genus and species to which the individual belongs. For example, the Gray Wolf belongs to the Genus-Canis and the Species-Lupas, and therefore, its scientific name is Canis lupas. Species in the same genus can never have the same species-name, but species belonging to different genera can share species-name. An example is Lathyrus sativus and Crocus sativus. The name of the genus is always written with the first letter capitalized, while the species-name is written in small caps. Furthermore the subspecies is represented by a trinomial, which contains the species binomial plus the specific subspecies name.
Baraminology
Main Article: Baraminology
Baraminology is a creation biology discipline that studies of the ancestry of life on Earth (biosystematics). It draws from the presupposition that God created many kinds of organisms as described in the Biblical book of Genesis, and is an effort to use scientific means to determine which organisms separate kinds (baramin), and which are related. Creationist biosystematics enables us to more clearly view and understand relationships that might not be visible from a naturalistic perspective. Most importantly, it provides another way for us to know the Creator.
The Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has been instrumental in this area of research. The group is involved to further the development and research of this theoretical framework in creation biology within a forum of leading creation scientists in the relevant fields.[3]
Cladistics
Main Article: Cladistics
Cladistics is a classification system for species which seeks to determine how different species are related. Evolutionary cladistics is based on the hypothesis of common descent, or the belief that all life on Earth is related. Creationist cladistics, on the other hand, is based on the hypothesis of created kinds, or the idea that all life on Earth was created by God ful