Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-04-2017, 04:49 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Why don't you try checking the Creationist sites to find that they accept 'change' through natural selection though genetic random mutations. If they accept it why don't you?
They do not.

Quote:
If you accept 'change' through natural selection, then why don't you give some scientific reason why 'change' can't become 'speciation'?
Speciation does not result in a change of species. The salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls.

Quote:
And religion comes into it as that is the only reason to deny the evidence of evolution. If not for those who insist that Genesis must be true, there would be no real debate.
I can prove "after their kind." You can't prove "not after their kind."

Quote:
A leg becomes a flipper - still with clear leg and paw -bones in. Not a fin. Though there is fossil evidence of fins turning into feet.
There is no evidence for fins becoming feet. It is genetically impossible.

Quote:
The fossil sequence shows the gradual evolutionary change from the nose to to the op of the head. The evidence of the evolution of land animal to whale is available. And genetics is no battier to that. If it allows evolutionary 'change', then it is allows profound evolutionary change.
It shows no such thing.


Quote:
Now you provide the scientific evidence that shows this cannot happen?
If you understood even basic genetics you would not make such a foolish statement.


Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPJoePcbEaI
Quote:

Now this guy is not too brilliant and is an Authority on nothing, but he does illustrate the Creationist view - they accept natural selection and presumably the genetic mechanism as what else?

While some creationist may accept natural selection, most do not. There is not scientific evidence to support it.

Quote:
But what they try to do is argue that there is some kind of barrier to this change going so far it becomes a different critter. Instead of the 'interbreeding nonsense with is NO part of evolution -theory, it is claimed (in the prepared script this fellow is reading) that natural selection can only rearrange information, not add to it. But the classic example is bacteria that evolved to digest plastics. Now, whether you say what was there before was rearranged or accept the evidence - that some genetic information that was not there before has appeared to allow this new feature - then the objection 'no new information' does not work. New enough information appears to allow change, with no practical limitation.
Bacteria remaining bateria is not evidence of evolution.

Quote:
Now bugs are still bugs, but the objections to "macro" change or rejection of the mechanism fail. Objections to it happening is the past fail as you cannot credibly debunk the cetan sequence, and Ring species provided not only the debunk of the 'kinds' claim (Biblical "kinds" makes no sense even in rational terms, let alone scientific) but debunk the 'cannot interbreed' objection.
In no example of ring specie did the species change. Do you folks never evaluate what you are being told?

Quote:
That's three bits of in your face evidence for evolution, aside from all the backup in genetics.

It should be evident that this is no more than trying to find some awkward questions about evolution, rather than calling it into question, but even those niggles about details fail miserably.
Evidently you don't understand "scientific evidence."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:24 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
You seem to be proving the point I made in my earlier post. I see it over and over in these threads. Creationists read creationist literature, but rarely, if ever, read actual scientists who defend evolution. Again I say: Rule #1 for a productive debate is this: Study your opponent's positions as defended by your actual opponents. You need to read what actual evolutionists are saying in order to pick the BEST arguments AGAINST your own position. Constantly attacking strawmen is a waste of time.
You seem to have forgotten that anyone educated in the public school systems has red what evolution say. It is not what they say, it is what they can prove, which is nothing,

Quote:
Can you list some actual pro-evolution science sources that you have read or watched? Referencing these sources, can you tell us what you think these pro-evolution scientists offer as their best evidence for evolution?
For over 20 years I read the links provided by the evos in various forums. Not on of them ever had any verifiable scientific evidence. Have you ever read the comments from creationist websites?

Quote:
If your primary sources are ICR, then this statement is questionable, at best.
The are all far better qualified in education and work experience any any in this forum.

Quote:
Which laws of genetics disprove evolution?

ALL characteristics in the offspring must come from the gene pool of its parents. No gene for fins no fins.

Quote:
Also, have you taken into consideration the numerous recent advancements in genetics and other aspects of the TOE? E.g., epigenetics, "hopping genes", the Human Genome Project, punctuated equilibrium, dynamical systems theories...

Be specific. What do these advancements prove? Punctuated equilibrium shows the failure of the fossil record to record any intermediate fossils. Thank you.

Quote:
Perhaps you can explain to me why you need to see the outer limits in order to know its expanding?
If you can't see the outer edge, you can't say it i expanding. That is a no-brainer.

Quote:
Let's test your creative thinking: Can you tell that a balloon is expanding if all you can see is a couple square inches of the balloon?
Creative thinking is not necessary for your example. Even a cave man can see a baloon expanding. You are trying to compare what can be seen with what can't' be seen.


Quote:
Our best theories at the moment suggest the energy implicit in the quantum vacuum.
Science is based on logic applied to empirical data.
Here you have 2 basic problems; you don't have a perfect vacuum and you don't have any empirical data.

Quote:
Logical arguments require "given" premises (i.e., some "brute facts" need to be accepted in order for the logical argument to even get started). That reality is energetic has to be taken as a logical given. If you allow yourself to ask where energy came from, then we are allowed to ask where God came from. If you can accept God as a brute fact of existence, then we can accept energy as a brute fact of existence. Goose/gander.
Yes questioning the origin of God is legitimate. The origin of God, matter, energy and life can't be proven. Therefore we must resort to logic. IMO, it is more logical to accept a creation needs a Creator.
Not only that a system that works perfectly every time also needs an Intelligent Designer. You still have a problem of explaiing how life originated from lifeless elements.

Quote:
If we had detailed answers to every question, we would no longer need science. We are a long ways from the end of science. A variety of plausible theories for abiogenesis have been proposed. Some basic "proof of concepts" have been done. The lack of consensus on a theory at the moment does not imply that abiogenesis can't happen.
There may be some theories, I doubt if any of the are plausible and I know there are not "proof of concepts." Feel free to prove me wrong.

[quote]It simply means we have more work to do. (BTW: Suppose I ask: How did God create life from the dust of the Earth? If you can't outline the physiochemical details of God's work, can I use that as proof that God did not do it?)

If you understand "omnipotence" you will understand that God can do anything He wants to. I think even evolution scientist admit that nothing can't be the source of something and dead elements can't be the source of life.

Quote:
I'd be curious to know where you are getting this argument from. I've read a fair amount of Creationist literature, but I don't recall seeing that argument. I seriously doubt that any reputable scientist or philosopher would ever propose it. Whoever it was, the lack of a bainer might explain the problem.
I have no idea what that is a reference to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:26 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
omega wields the FODI* like he was born to it and has burnished it to a very dull, Eusebian sheen. He can deflect truth and rationality without breaking a sweat.


*Fundashield Of Determined Ignorance.
Instead of your usual insult why not post some evidence to support your ignorance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:43 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
You are incorrect. A land animal species can live near water, then the population slowly become's an otter-like due to selection of small traits adding up, then become's hippo-like, then becomes dolphin-like. A wolf-like land animal is not going to became whale-like out of the blue. [even if there was a catastrophe for land-dwellers and wolf-like population could swim and catch fish].
That is the usual evo rhetoric and as usual is only talk, no evidence. Even if pakicetus did catch and eat fish, that would not change it into a sea creature, Not only is that absurd, it is not scientific.

Quote:
Yes, I'd find it amusing too, although a fossil expert isn't exactly qualified as an evolutionary biologist. Oh... you meant Gould from the 70s? I can read up on how he thinks evolution is a lie after studying it deeply and critically and skeptically as one should study religion (if he even thinks such a thing about evolution).
Right, I meant Gould, and he is more expert than any in this forum. especially when it comes to fossils. He says there are no intermediates, and intermediates are necessary to support evolution.

Quote:
I just looked it up and it took 5 minutes. Neither of those two people deny evolution, since they were trying to prove that evolution worked the way they thought, rather than through the old and common-sense idea of phyletic gradualism: the old idea that all species at all times change slowly (and stay the same slowly) yet steadily because of random mutation.
I never suggested that did not remain evolutionists.


Quote:
In their view, large populations (the ones that would be found in fossil records) are far too stable to experience natural selection at all times, so instead they came up with the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" which means that rapid evolution (and speciation) only happens when some disaster makes the population smaller and thus more susceptible to changes through natural selection. This makes complete sense with what people were teaching about the modern synthesis of evolution (in college at least) 10 to 15 years ago. It seems that Gould and Mayr's PRO-EVOLUTION ideas caught on among those supposedly "close-minded" experts and they strengthened the model to comport to the available evidence, math, and logic.
Punctuated equilibrium is more absurd than gradualism. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediates. The fossil record supports "after their kind."


Quote:
P.S. evolution always said that species reproduce after their kind (their parents)... The idea is that through small gradual changes "micro-evolution" 1 x 1000 is 1000 small changes which can equal 1 big change if there is the right "selection" pressure.
Evolution does not say "after their kind." It preaches "not after their kind." All offspring have small changes , but none of them ever result in a change of species. That is genetically impossible if you understand genetics, and time will not change the laws of genetics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:45 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
To use your own MO - You cannot prove that the edge of the universe has never been seen.
If it had ever been seen, science would have reported it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:46 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
Good question.

Tell me, what elements is your body made of? Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen? All lifeless elements right?
The human body is not limited to those elements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:48 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Hypotheses about the origins of life

There are some great hypotheses today.

The Miller-Urey experiment provided the first evidence that organic molecules needed for life could be formed from inorganic components.
They did not. There expirements were a failure and were abandoned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:53 AM
 
Location: knoxville, Tn.
4,765 posts, read 1,982,538 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
If my Theory about OImega is right he has nothing but scorn for the Urey experiments. "They tried to produce life, but failed miserably." As Gaylen said, a strawman argument. It did add to the feasability of the abiogenesis mechanism. Some others say that undersea vents show that such was the source of life rather than shallow ponds - the mineral "soup", as the colloquial term has it. I rather doubt that life started in those undersea vets but rather has adapted to living there. But the fossil record of life shows that it began in the water. The Cambrian oceans were full of life before it ventured out onto land, and the need for water is pretty much a basic of life.

However, while the origins of life are an interesting study, using the 'don't know' about it as a way of debunking evolution is a truly futile strawman. Even if a god plonked the first cells in the sea, the evidence is that from then on it evolved, rather than appeared as all the 'kinds' (forgive the term) we see today, less the extinct ones.

The argument that all the present 'kinds' appeared in the Cambrian -period ocean is absurd. We had water - plants, crustaceans, annelida of various kinds and proto -fish. There was a lot of evolving to be done, yet.
There is no evidence that life has ever evolved from a lower form. To say all the great variety of life, animal and plant life we have today, originated from one source is not only insane, it is genetically impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 06:30 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,545,443 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
They do not.



Speciation does not result in a change of species. The salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls.



I can prove "after their kind." You can't prove "not after their kind."



There is no evidence for fins becoming feet. It is genetically impossible.



It shows no such thing.




If you understood even basic genetics you would not make such a foolish statement.


[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPJoePcbEaI"]


While some creationist may accept natural selection, most do not. There is not scientific evidence to support it.



Bacteria remaining bateria is not evidence of evolution.



In no example of ring specie did the species change. Do you folks never evaluate what you are being told?



Evidently you don't understand "scientific evidence."
Mere baseless assertions with nothing to back it up.

You showed you didn't understand the point about ring species. it is not that gulls that cannot interbreed are still gulls, but that what cannot interbreed in NOT a valid criteria for "Kinds".

Interbreeding (or not) is the basis of the objection to "macro" evolution. It is clearly not the criterion for what is a 'Kind" and has nothing to do with evolutionary change. It is an objection to evolution that fails, and a claim for Biblical "Kinds" that also fails.

About the acceptance of natural selection by Creationists, it is possible that some might still reject it. I can only say that I have seen quite a few easy shruggings -off by Creationism of evolution as "Change" as being ok within species. I haven't seen any arguments that it is not through natural selection.

Perhaps you can find some Creationists who do claim that. They are wrong on the evidence, of course, but they may still claim it.

After posting some copyrighted material, I am a bit aped about copy -pase, but I think these are ok.

There has been, strangely enough, a difference of opinion among naturalists, as to whether these seasonal changes of color were intended by Providence as an adaptation to change of temperature, or as a means of preserving the various species from the observation of their foes, by adapting their hues to the color of the surface. . . . The fact is, they answer both purposes; and they are among those striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause. (ICR)

Experimental confirmation of natural selection is interpreted as proof of Darwin’s theory. (Answers in genesis)

Question: "What do creationists believe about natural selection?"

Answer: Natural selection is considered to be the survival of the fittest and is often confused with evolution. But far from being proof for evolution and against creationism, natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment
(got questions org)
The answer appears to be based on the actual Creationist consensus

This is an important ‘equation’1 that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.2 Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.

How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it
. (Creation ministries)

The 'debunk' is a familiar one, pretty much Theistic evolution, really, combined with a different take on genetic barriers (the interbreeding one is now known to be pointless) so 'information cannot be added' is the mantra. Thisis also false as evolutionary change has been shown to be accompanied by New Information (as near as makes no difference) in the genome.

The term “natural selection” is used to describe how one species might develop from another. God created the various kinds or baramins of creatures with a wide variety of genetic information. If a population of a creature with such a deep gene pool is placed in an environment that requires certain characteristics, for which the gene pool has information, then the next and subsequent generations may “select” that information, discarding alternative information. For example, wolf-kind animals living in colder environments may “select” genes for longer hair, which might mean that the genes for shorter hair in that new species are lost.
(creation today article by Eric Hovind.)

This is as close to describing evolution by natural selection as a mechanism used by God as could be asked for.

This is just half the entries on P1 of my Google returns. They are of course cagey about the mechanism. They seem to prefer to argue that God uses it (whatever it it) and rest on the claim that No New Information (just genetic shuffling of what's already there) prevents "Macro" evolution. That is incorrect, as will be seen since the the evidence of it is to hand, but that's what they rely on to deny "Macro' now rather than 'cannot interbreed', which they really can't use anymore.


Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
Let me give 3 you a clue that might help your scientific ignorance. Saying something is evidence does not make it evidence. There are genetic barriers for those who understand even basic genetics. Natural selection comes straight out of pope Darwin's la la land and you have no evidence supporting it. Now prove med wrong and post the evidence to support it. Mentioning Lucy is just another indication that you lack understanding of science. You have absolutely no evidence linking apes and humans.

You have no evidence linking seals and penguins to land animals.

I suggest you take a course in remedial genetics. It is obvious your indoctrination has been successful, and it has made you ignorant of what science can and can't do.
Denying evidence does not make it go away. It just makes you look denialist.

Explain your genetic barriers, since you claim to understand genetics so well. You made the claim, you explain it, then I'll see whether I can debunk it.

There is evidence linking apes and humans. Fossil, morphological and genetic. You simply deny it.

Penguins are of course birds. clearly birds. They have wings. They use them to swim, not fly. The visual evidence suggests that they did once fly, but have adapted to the sea.

Seals and the like walk on legs (I'll bet you can see from the skeleton that they have arm and hand bones - just like whales) aand that is evidence that they were once land animals that adapted to the sea.

You can argue (as you did in your Eusebian incarnation) that 'God made them that way'. But this is dismissing the evidence in the old and ludicrous argument that God made a world that only looked like it had evolved.

Let's see who needs the education about genetics.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-04-2017 at 07:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 08:47 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,968 posts, read 26,210,600 times
Reputation: 16132
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx View Post
Let me give 3 you a clue that might help your scientific ignorance. Saying something is evidence does not make it evidence. There are genetic barriers for those who understand even basic genetics. Natural selection comes straight out of pope Darwin's la la land and you have no evidence supporting it. Now prove med wrong and post the evidence to support it. Mentioning Lucy is just another indication that you lack understanding of science. You have absolutely no evidence linking apes and humans.

You have no evidence linking seals and penguins to land animals.

I suggest you take a course in remedial genetics. It is obvious your indoctrination has been successful, and it has made you ignorant of what science can and can't do.
Well, let's first get a definition of natural selection.
natural selection. :a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...al%20selection
Now let's look at natural selection taking place right before our very eyes within a few generations of a population of lizards on the island of Pod Mrcaru. Go ahead and listen to it. It's less than six minutes long. There's your observable evidence of natural selection.

Richard Dawkins - Evolution Before Our Every Eyes - Lizards of Pod Mrcaru


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBv6-XORcLg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top