Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
1) stop quotemining. It's dishonest and against forum rules.
2) your "i'm a billionaire" analogy has been dealt with 6 months ago, I suggest you drop it and come up with something new.
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"
I dug this up just for you, Bevets...
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "God created all life 6,000 years ago."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points to the bible. "It says so in here."(The book is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows the bible is inerrant"
You say "I know the bible is inerrant concerning theology, but why should I believe that it's inerrant concerning science?"
"Because it's in the BIBLE!" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He points to his bible and quotes from it,"Thinking they were wise they became fools."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!!!" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He points to his bible and quotes from it again, "And God saw that it was good", "Do you believe me now?"
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "God created all life 6,000 years ago."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points to the bible. "It says so in here."(The book is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows the bible is inerrant"
You say "I know the bible is inerrant concerning theology, but why should I believe that it's inerrant concerning science?"
"Because it's in the BIBLE!" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He points to his bible and quotes from it,"Thinking they were wise they became fools."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!!!" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He points to his bible and quotes from it again, "And God saw that it was good", "Do you believe me now?"
The forum rules allow quoting as long as the source is cited:
3. Cite your sources when copying and pasting information into your post. We aim for original thinking in this forum, and as such, we detest plagarism of any kind. We have several methods to determine if you have copied and pasted information. Abusers of this will be accused of violating the board's spam rule.
Posting nothing but quotes with no points being made is, well, somewhat of a waste of time. It really accomplishes very little. Use them to make a point... but there has to be a point.
__________________ HELLO SAINTS! See my best ranting and raving here: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"...do not be concerned that some do not see your message. There are those who are hungrey for truth and who are seeking light. If there is truth in what you are saying, it will ring in their hearts like a bell. Those who are seeking will find, and if what they are seeking is in your saying, they will know it." To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A month ago someone mentioned Hovinds $250,000 Challenge in a letter in the local paper. I replied with a few points about Mr Hovind and the fradulent challenge, also noting the letter writer misconceptions about evolution (big bang, random chance)
And today another letter writer wrote this.
..
I assume that Ross MacLeod believes in the theory of evolution (ie, macro evolution ; when species over a long time randomly change into other species) If my assumption is correct, could he answer:
How does evolution work? Is there any evidence of evolution (past and present)
We can then guage whether the theory is scientific fact or hypothesis only.
..
Now that's a guantlet thrown down if ever I saw one!
It's a 200 world limit reply. My current draft is this.
....
James Fong (Waikato Times 21st Sept) challenges me to explain how evolution works. I am not a scientist and have only 200 word limit here. I would recommend www.talkorigins.org or http://www.christianforums.com/f70 for a wealth of information.
Evolution begins with mutation, an offspring genetically different to the parent. The mutation is random. Evolution is not. If the mutation offers an advantage to the offspring that allows it to reproduce more often, then the new genetic structure will become more common. Repeat many times in many different situations and you have evolution.
Evidence exists in the form of fossils and genetic code. Scientists in the relative fields examine data and piece it together in the best way they can. The past is not observed personally nor does it need to be. It is reconstructed, such as in C.S.I.
Finally, no scientific theory is ever proven 100%. Gravity, relativity, germs, atoms; all these are scientific theories. Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have to fit the evidence that exists.
Most scientists would willingly admit that they could be wrong. Yet it is an admission seldom seen from the creationists.
....
Any suggestions, warnings or recommendations?
Ryal Kane (Ross MacLeod)
Way too technical for a letter to the paper.
I recommend pointing out the problems with the letter writer's assertians.
First the "macro evolution" strawman. Species just don't ramdomly change into other species. Tie this back to Hovind's challange to explain that is being challanged is a creationist fantasy version of evolution.
then point out his assumption is incorrect, but answer his question anyway. Can you explain how evolution works? Yes, but not within 200 word letter to the editor. Keep the links to more info in there. Evidence? Of cousre.
Finally point out his apparent lack of understanding of scientific fact, theory and, hypothesis.
I recommend pointing out the problems with the letter writer's assertians.
First the "macro evolution" strawman. Species just don't ramdomly change into other species. Tie this back to Hovind's challange to explain that is being challanged is a creationist fantasy version of evolution.
then point out his assumption is incorrect, but answer his question anyway. Can you explain how evolution works? Yes, but not within 200 word letter to the editor. Keep the links to more info in there. Evidence? Of cousre.
Finally point out his apparent lack of understanding of scientific fact, theory and, hypothesis.
Also,
never discredit yourself.
Thanks. One more question. What would you say is the best way to put this?
'his apparent lack of understanding of scientific fact, theory and, hypothesis.'
Yesh, I'm gettign you guys to write my letter for me!
Ryal Kane
__________________ From childhoods hour I have not been
as others were. I have not seen
as others saw. I could not bring
my passions from a common spring.
From the same source I have not taken
my sorrow. I could not awaken
my heart to joy at the same tone.
All I loved, I loved alone. Edgar Allen Poe
CSI is based on real time experiments. They observe blood spatters and body decomposition in controlled real time experiments, and then apply their obervations to crime scenes.
Now try this (i.e. repeatable real time observations) with evolution. How do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.
Here is how science actually works: 1) observe 2) hypothesize 3) test 4) if successful, repeat.
Many observations led to the original hypothesis of common ancestry. In fact, by Darwin's day, some form of common ancestry was already in favor by many naturalists. Here are just a few:
Nested hierarchy of species as revealed by taxonomy
Fossils record demonstrates that the further back in time one looks, the less species alive at that time look like modern species
Newer species look similar to older species
Since the publication of On the Origin of Species, there have been many more observations like the twin nested hierarchies and the specifics of anatomical and genetic homologies.
So, how do you test an hypothesis? It isn't so hard, and it works the same for every field of science, evolution included. Using the hypothesis as a premise, form a deductive conclusion about something that must be true if the hypothesis is true. This could be a conclusion about the result of an experiment, or something that must hold true for future evidence, or how a particular analysis of the existing evidence should turn out. This is also called a testable prediction.
Here is a simple example: If common ancestry is true, then there is a true, single phylogeny for all species. If that is true, then independent analysis of molecular and morphologic data should yeild highly convergent trees.
This condition must be true if evolution is true. If this condition is not met, common ancestry must be false. Of course, we know that this prediction is, in fact, true. It is referred to as the twin nested hierarchies.
For an hypothesis or theory, the more testable predictions it makes, the more robust, and more accepted it becomes. Evolution has undergone many such tests over the last 150 years. That is why it is provisionally accepted by the vast majority of scientists, i.e. it is considered a fact.
The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
Originally Posted by Tomk80
The only thing Gould says here is that large transitions as seen in the fossil record will take longer than can be directly observed there. No worries for us, we know that already.
Does this have any implications for observations of 'micro evolution' as evidence for historic evolution? Please explain.
Originally Posted by bevets
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin
Originally Posted by Tomk80
This doens't hold any value without the arguments why. I don't care whether our queen says that micro-evolution can't be extrapolated, if she won't come with arguments, she's on shallow water. Next to this, Lewin isn't known by me for his accurate quoting himself:
Originally Posted by Tomk80
"The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate." as reported by Roger Lewin in his article article "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science Magazine, Volume 210, 21 November 1980, pp 883-887.
"I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate." [Franciso Ayala]
You have addressed a quote that I have not cited, but I will induldge you:
It is a fair point that a man should be allowed authoritative recollection and interpretation of his own words. However, Roger Lewin wrote the article directly after the conference. Ayala's response comes twenty years later (and he himself suggests that his memory of specific conversations at the time is not clear). The quote has been in print for almost twenty-four years and neither the writer nor the magazine has offered a retraction.
As for Lewin's trustworthiness, there is no indication of partisanship -- he is an evolutionist. You seem to suggest that he has been sloppy. This could be, however he earned a PhD in Biochemistry and he was News Editor of Science Magazine for several years. Should we dismiss everything we read in Science Magazine? or by Roger Lewin?
The quote is brief. I suspect Ayala may have been acknowledging the lack of evidence for gradualism in the fossil record.
The original quote I used was a general assessment of the conference. If you can cite someone who disputes the accuracy of this assessment, now would be a good time to mention it.
Originally Posted by bevets
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"
Originally Posted by Tomk80
This 'parable' has been refuted on this forum more than once and is more consistent with creationism.
Originally Posted by Tomk80
I'll get back on this later.
Score so far. 1 misquote, 1 irrelevant quote from an inaccurate quoter and a parable refuted a thousand times.
When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored. As time passes, people forget that Darwinists never adequately met the criticism. But Darwinism is still ruling the roost. Since the criticism failed to dislodge Darwinism, the criticism itself must have been discredited or refuted somewhere. Thereafter the criticism becomes known as "that discredited criticism that was refuted a long time ago." And, after that, even to raise the criticism betrays an outdated conception of evolutionary theory. In this way, the criticism, though entirely valid, simply vanishes into oblivion. ~ William Dembski
One tactic evolutionists NEVER get tired of is the suggestion that if an evolutionist has addressed a topic -- that topic is off limits for eternity. Disputation is not refutation. (Notice that this is a one way street -- When is the last time someone said 'Creationists have already refuted that point'?)
OTH I commend you for going beyond the standard knee jerk response, and investing at least some effort in personally investigating my quotes. I think this is the second time this month someone gave my quotes some thought. I am truly grateful for your substantive criticism.
__________________ If it is evolutionism, it is not science. If it is scence, it is not evolutionism.
If only you would post something besides quotes, maybe people would listen to you more. Maybe address the thread in your own words.
For example, I don't care if evolutionist x treats evolution like a religion based on a couple sound bites, that doesn't mirror my views or refute the evidence provided.
If I remember the old thread right, you ignored all the refutations of your parable and never addressed them, yet you still use the parable.
So, do you have any of your own thoughts to add to this discussion or should I go back to ignoring you?
Linear Mode
