Creationism in public schools? (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

good brother

Guest
Genus: Pedopenna, 168-140 million years ago
Genus: Anchiornis,~155 MYA
Genus: Scansoriopteryx, 164-158 MYA
Genus: Archaopteryx, 150-145 MYA
Genus: Confuciusornis, 120MYA
Genus: Eoalulavis, 115 MYA
Genus: Ichtyornis, 93-75 MYA
Heck, I’ll even toss in a few primitive birds for you:
Genus: Waimanu, 60-58 MYA, earliest known penguin
Genus: Colymboides, ~37 MYA? (couldn’t find much on the date), loon
Genus:Mopsitta, 55-48 MYA, psittacine
Genus: Primapus, 50 MYA, apodiform (the order than includes the hummingbird family
Three dinosaurs and eight birds. The three dinosaurs are just that, dinosaurs. The eight birds are all birds. I fail to see any transitions.

But, again, it is the differences. What it is made of, how much of it is bone, the openings in it, sensory organs it contains, et cetera. So, no, it isn’t.
But again, I could list so many differences between dinosaurs and birds that a dead man's head would spin.


Ah, so the goalposts get moved. Yes, sunlight can provide energy to reactions, but they’re all DESIGNED, so it doesn’t count. There are a lot of chemical reactions, such as bromination of alkanes, that rely on light to get the started. Hoya plants don’t prefer direct sunlight, but do need light, yes, that is true. But what kind of plant are they? They’re climbers, right? So it would make sense they’d get used to shade and not direct sunlight from the trees and such they are growing on.

And your grass got burnt because of too much sun AND NO RAIN. So, the sun can’t provide energy because a combined drought killed your grass? Really?
I didn't move any goal posts. I just spray painted the boundaries for you. You just seem to think that any energy is good energy and all I did was to point out that your examples are all designed to use energy from the Sun. You make it sound as if anything can just go "Eh, I think I'll use energy from the Sun today."


So, again, the goalposts get moved. Yes, there are things designed to use the wind, SO IT DOESN”T COUNT.
Once again, I didn't move the goal posts. All I did was point out that the examples you listed are already designed to utilize the wind. None of them said, "Eh, I think I'll use the wind to get my energy or locomotion from."


Same thing. OH, things are designed to be there, SO IT DOESN”T COUNT. Moving the goalposts AGAIN.
Again, no moving, just outlining them for you. I was beginning to think you couldn't see them.



Yet glass is more organized than sand. So you just toss out a red herring and MOVE THE GOALPOSTS AGAIN. Not only does it need to produce more order, it needs to instantly produce life now? Really?
You keep saying I am moving the goal posts, and all I am doing is demonstrating how you are looking at things that were designed to use the above energies as proof for those energies being the catalyst for the beginning of all life.


So did it or did it not show that amino acids can form without life?
From a creationist website that you probably won't accept just for the sheer fact of what website this comes from:

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.​

In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0
Boxes, Evolution is not an alternative class, it is a part of science, based in as much fact as proving that you and I are actually here.:thumbsup:

No it isent, I can teach algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, 99.9% of physics, chemistry, health and 95% of biology without ever discussing controversial topics like evolution or creationism. Its like string theory, yea its a valid theory and highly controversial but why do high school students need to be involved in that controversy when they dont even have geometry down.

Finish your HS diploma get a PhD in theology and then you can argue about creationism and evolution or get a PhD in physics and you can argue about string theory. Most people that argue about this do it for the sensationalism and likely have not even read the bible or studied real science in any meaningful capacity. They know just enough to be snide on a forum or argument.

This is effecting kids because they are not learning the meat and potatoes they are just getting drug into sensationalism.
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Three dinosaurs and eight birds. The three dinosaurs are just that, dinosaurs. The eight birds are all birds. I fail to see any transitions.
So you didn’t actually take anything more than a cursory look at them. Thanks for letting me know that with this response.

If you are going to respond this way, should I keep supplying you with information on demand? You don’t even attempt to say why you don’t think they are transitions.

But again, I could list so many differences between dinosaurs and birds that a dead man's head would spin.
I bet you could. And then there are all those pesky fossils that have features of both that you’ve been ignoring and dismissing.

I didn't move any goal posts. I just spray painted the boundaries for you. You just seem to think that any energy is good energy and all I did was to point out that your examples are all designed to use energy from the Sun. You make it sound as if anything can just go "Eh, I think I'll use energy from the Sun today."
Yes, you did move the goal posts.

You said that
The bad thing was that every one of those you listed brings about more chaos than it does organization.
Therefore, later saying that even one of those forces does bring about organization BUT IT DOESN”T COUNT is moving the goalposts.

Not, not all energy is usable energy. Furthermore, given your lack of the understanding of the SLoT I sincerely doubt you have collegiate or beyond level organic or biochemistry education to recognize or understand all the chemical reactions that don’t require life that use sunlight.

Once again, I didn't move the goal posts. All I did was point out that the examples you listed are already designed to utilize the wind. None of them said, "Eh, I think I'll use the wind to get my energy or locomotion from."
...

Again, no moving, just outlining them for you. I was beginning to think you couldn't see them.
...
You keep saying I am moving the goal posts, and all I am doing is demonstrating how you are looking at things that were designed to use the above energies as proof for those energies being the catalyst for the beginning of all life.
Same thing.

“Oh, yes, I previously said that ALL the energies bring about more chaos than order, but now that there are examples, they don’t count because of some previously unmentioned criteria!” Moving. The. Goalposts.

You also ignored the entire part about what entropy is and why the SLoT doesn’t even apply to the surface of the earth as a whole.

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.
So it didn’t produce a lot. So? It produced some. All this is is MORE goalpost moving. “Well, some amino acids WERE produced without life... but... but.. OKAY! Get this! They weren’t ENOUGH so it still isn’t good enough!”
Furthermore, Miller-Urey is just one experiment that I cited for electricity, not the be all end all for how life arose.

Furthermore, abiogenesis doesn’t have to do with evolution, so why is it such a big deal?

FURTHERMORE, where is the positive evidence FOR creationism?

No it isent, I can teach algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, 99.9% of physics, chemistry, health and 95% of biology without ever discussing controversial topics like evolution or creationism. Its like string theory, yea its a valid theory and highly controversial but why do high school students need to be involved in that controversy when they dont even have geometry down.

Math? Sure. Easily. Physics? Nope, you’ll run afoul of ground covered in creationism. Chemistry? Just look at what goodbrother is trying to do with the SLoT, which generally is assigned to physical chemistry. Health? Usually.
But especially on biology, I’m afraid you are wrong. Evolution is not scientifically controversial, but culturally. And it is a large part of biology. What is biology? The study of life. What is a main feature of life? That it adapts to its surroundings. How does it adapt? Evolution. Previously in this thread, I linked at least one dictionary’s definition of life and it was: metabolism, ability to reproduce and the ability to adapt. Evolution deals explicitly with two of those and has ramifications for the third. It is an integral part of biology, and not really comparable to string theory, which (last I heard) has no empirical evidence yet.

Finish your HS diploma get a PhD in theology and then you can argue about creationism and evolution or get a PhD in physics and you can argue about string theory.

One doesn’t need a PhD in theology to deal with evolution because evolution is not religious in any ways. There are no doctrines, no miracles, no dogma, no rituals, no prescribed moral code, no belief about the afterlife, ... I could go on. And creationism doesn’t have any evidence, so the idea of it being in science classrooms is ludicrous.

Most people that argue about this do it for the sensationalism and likely have not even read the bible or studied real science in any meaningful capacity. They know just enough to be snide on a forum or argument.

This is effecting kids because they are not learning the meat and potatoes they are just getting drug into sensationalism.
This is actually one of the best reasons to keep all mention of creationism and the ‘teach the controversy’ and ID and all that baloney out of classrooms, while the kids learn the meat and potatoes of biology, which in a large part is evolution, along with some genetics and assorted other things. Mendel’s peas and all.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0
G

good brother

Guest
So you didn’t actually take anything more than a cursory look at them. Thanks for letting me know that with this response.

If you are going to respond this way, should I keep supplying you with information on demand? You don’t even attempt to say why you don’t think they are transitions.
Actually, I took the time to look each and every one of them up. Three of them are dinosaurs, end of story, and eight of them were nothing more than extinct birds- end of story. What more would you have me to say?




Yes, you did move the goal posts.

You said that

Therefore, later saying that even one of those forces does bring about organization BUT IT DOESN”T COUNT is moving the goalposts.

Not, not all energy is usable energy. Furthermore, given your lack of the understanding of the SLoT I sincerely doubt you have collegiate or beyond level organic or biochemistry education to recognize or understand all the chemical reactions that don’t require life that use sunlight.


Same thing.

“Oh, yes, I previously said that ALL the energies bring about more chaos than order, but now that there are examples, they don’t count because of some previously unmentioned criteria!” Moving. The. Goalposts.
No, I didn't move them. You were trying to use all those examples as energies that could BRING about life's organization, and that's not the case at all. Every single example you listed all have been DESIGNED to utilize said energy. It would be like me saying that roads will bring about tires because the roads exist. No, the roads sole existence is for the use of tires on it and travel by humans. That's not goalpost moving. No woodchucks have become airchucks simply because the wind exists. No fish has used photosynthesis because the sun is there. And no one who has been struck by lightning has become more organized despite the movie "Phenomenon". So no, it's not goalpost moving.



So it didn’t produce a lot. So? It produced some. All this is is MORE goalpost moving. “Well, some amino acids WERE produced without life... but... but.. OKAY! Get this! They weren’t ENOUGH so it still isn’t good enough!”
Furthermore, Miller-Urey is just one experiment that I cited for electricity, not the be all end all for how life arose.
It did not make life, nor did it even make half enough to make life. It didn't make a third of life. It didn't make a tenth of the needed material for life. How is that a victory? If Edison had made a fixture that was 10% of lightbulb would that be a victory? Especially if no light at all came from it and it was incapable of ever making light?


In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0
So you didn’t actually take anything more than a cursory look at them. Thanks for letting me know that with this response.

If you are going to respond this way, should I keep supplying you with information on demand? You don’t even attempt to say why you don’t think they are transitions.


I bet you could. And then there are all those pesky fossils that have features of both that you’ve been ignoring and dismissing.


Yes, you did move the goal posts.

You said that

Therefore, later saying that even one of those forces does bring about organization BUT IT DOESN”T COUNT is moving the goalposts.

Not, not all energy is usable energy. Furthermore, given your lack of the understanding of the SLoT I sincerely doubt you have collegiate or beyond level organic or biochemistry education to recognize or understand all the chemical reactions that don’t require life that use sunlight.


Same thing.

“Oh, yes, I previously said that ALL the energies bring about more chaos than order, but now that there are examples, they don’t count because of some previously unmentioned criteria!” Moving. The. Goalposts.

You also ignored the entire part about what entropy is and why the SLoT doesn’t even apply to the surface of the earth as a whole.


So it didn’t produce a lot. So? It produced some. All this is is MORE goalpost moving. “Well, some amino acids WERE produced without life... but... but.. OKAY! Get this! They weren’t ENOUGH so it still isn’t good enough!”
Furthermore, Miller-Urey is just one experiment that I cited for electricity, not the be all end all for how life arose.

Furthermore, abiogenesis doesn’t have to do with evolution, so why is it such a big deal?

FURTHERMORE, where is the positive evidence FOR creationism?



Math? Sure. Easily. Physics? Nope, you’ll run afoul of ground covered in creationism. Chemistry? Just look at what goodbrother is trying to do with the SLoT, which generally is assigned to physical chemistry. Health? Usually.
But especially on biology, I’m afraid you are wrong. Evolution is not scientifically controversial, but culturally. And it is a large part of biology. What is biology? The study of life. What is a main feature of life? That it adapts to its surroundings. How does it adapt? Evolution. Previously in this thread, I linked at least one dictionary’s definition of life and it was: metabolism, ability to reproduce and the ability to adapt. Evolution deals explicitly with two of those and has ramifications for the third. It is an integral part of biology, and not really comparable to string theory, which (last I heard) has no empirical evidence yet.


One doesn’t need a PhD in theology to deal with evolution because evolution is not religious in any ways. There are no doctrines, no miracles, no dogma, no rituals, no prescribed moral code, no belief about the afterlife, ... I could go on. And creationism doesn’t have any evidence, so the idea of it being in science classrooms is ludicrous.


This is actually one of the best reasons to keep all mention of creationism and the ‘teach the controversy’ and ID and all that baloney out of classrooms, while the kids learn the meat and potatoes of biology, which in a large part is evolution, along with some genetics and assorted other things. Mendel’s peas and all.

Metherion

Micro evolution is scientificly proven, macro evolution has no proof and is sensationalism. We can teach our kids 99.9% of what they need to know without introducing sensational subjects and they can tackle the other 0.1% when they have a PhD.
 
Upvote 0

Freedom63

Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)
Aug 4, 2011
1,108
37
Indiana
✟1,527.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Micro evolution is scientificly proven, macro evolution has no proof and is sensationalism. We can teach our kids 99.9% of what they need to know without introducing sensational subjects and they can tackle the other 0.1% when they have a PhD.

Are you for real? Sensationalism? Comments like these are sensationalism. :doh:
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Micro evolution is scientificly proven, macro evolution has no proof and is sensationalism. We can teach our kids 99.9% of what they need to know without introducing sensational subjects and they can tackle the other 0.1% when they have a PhD.

What, precisely, do you take to be the difference between "micro-" and "macro-" versions of evoulution? What exact mechanism separates the two? How do you know that this mechanism allows "micro-evolution" and disallows "macro-evolution"?

I have never been able to get straight answers to these questions. (By straight answers, I mean something that is -- or can be made to be -- testable, so that the issue can be laid to rest.)
 
Upvote 0
Aug 21, 2011
15
2
✟15,147.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
So you didn’t actually take anything more than a cursory look at them. Thanks for letting me know that with this response.

If you are going to respond this way, should I keep supplying you with information on demand? You don’t even attempt to say why you don’t think they are transitions.


I bet you could. And then there are all those pesky fossils that have features of both that you’ve been ignoring and dismissing.


Yes, you did move the goal posts.

You said that

Therefore, later saying that even one of those forces does bring about organization BUT IT DOESN”T COUNT is moving the goalposts.

Not, not all energy is usable energy. Furthermore, given your lack of the understanding of the SLoT I sincerely doubt you have collegiate or beyond level organic or biochemistry education to recognize or understand all the chemical reactions that don’t require life that use sunlight.


Same thing.

“Oh, yes, I previously said that ALL the energies bring about more chaos than order, but now that there are examples, they don’t count because of some previously unmentioned criteria!” Moving. The. Goalposts.

You also ignored the entire part about what entropy is and why the SLoT doesn’t even apply to the surface of the earth as a whole.


So it didn’t produce a lot. So? It produced some. All this is is MORE goalpost moving. “Well, some amino acids WERE produced without life... but... but.. OKAY! Get this! They weren’t ENOUGH so it still isn’t good enough!”
Furthermore, Miller-Urey is just one experiment that I cited for electricity, not the be all end all for how life arose.

Furthermore, abiogenesis doesn’t have to do with evolution, so why is it such a big deal?

FURTHERMORE, where is the positive evidence FOR creationism?



Math? Sure. Easily. Physics? Nope, you’ll run afoul of ground covered in creationism. Chemistry? Just look at what goodbrother is trying to do with the SLoT, which generally is assigned to physical chemistry. Health? Usually.
But especially on biology, I’m afraid you are wrong. Evolution is not scientifically controversial, but culturally. And it is a large part of biology. What is biology? The study of life. What is a main feature of life? That it adapts to its surroundings. How does it adapt? Evolution. Previously in this thread, I linked at least one dictionary’s definition of life and it was: metabolism, ability to reproduce and the ability to adapt. Evolution deals explicitly with two of those and has ramifications for the third. It is an integral part of biology, and not really comparable to string theory, which (last I heard) has no empirical evidence yet.


One doesn’t need a PhD in theology to deal with evolution because evolution is not religious in any ways. There are no doctrines, no miracles, no dogma, no rituals, no prescribed moral code, no belief about the afterlife, ... I could go on. And creationism doesn’t have any evidence, so the idea of it being in science classrooms is ludicrous.


This is actually one of the best reasons to keep all mention of creationism and the ‘teach the controversy’ and ID and all that baloney out of classrooms, while the kids learn the meat and potatoes of biology, which in a large part is evolution, along with some genetics and assorted other things. Mendel’s peas and all.

Metherion

Now THAT is something I can say "amen" to.
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Actually, I took the time to look each and every one of them up. Three of them are dinosaurs, end of story, and eight of them were nothing more than extinct birds- end of story. What more would you have me to say?
No, it isn’t the ‘end of the story’. That’s missing the entire point, and that shows me that even though you did look them up you either did not read or comprehend much. What would you expect them to be if not birds or dinosaurs? They are in the middle. That’s not a new class, there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to which is which. The point is just how many non-avian features each bird has, and how many avian features each bird lacks, as well as how many avian features each dinosaur has, and how many dinosaur features each dinosaur lacks. THAT is what makes them transitional. Saying “It is a bird, end of story” is missing the entire point.

No, I didn't move them. You were trying to use all those examples as energies that could BRING about life's organization, and that's not the case at all. Every single example you listed all have been DESIGNED to utilize said energy. It would be like me saying that roads will bring about tires because the roads exist. No, the roads sole existence is for the use of tires on it and travel by humans. That's not goalpost moving. No woodchucks have become airchucks simply because the wind exists. No fish has used photosynthesis because the sun is there. And no one who has been struck by lightning has become more organized despite the movie "Phenomenon". So no, it's not goalpost moving.
I’m sorry sir, you are wrong here. You have been moving the goalposts every step of the discussion and I shall show it.

Qualifier: Any capital letters used below are used for emphasis and not internet shouting out of rage.

Originally you claimed, and I shall post the quote again, that
The bad thing was that every one of those you listed brings about more chaos than it does organization.
There is NOTHING about life in that statement, just chaos and organization (which aren’t even entropy in and of themselves, so you haven’t even been arguing about the right thing!)

THEN, AFTER I presented my examples, you discounted some (wind, deep sea thermal vents) for things being ‘designed’ to use them. THAT ELEMENT WAS NOWHERE IN YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT. You moved the goalposts.

On my idea of lightning and sand, you said that it wasn’t ‘enough’ because the sand didn’t become ‘stained glass’. THERE WAS NO QUALIFIER OF ANY AMOUNT OF ORGANIZATION BEING ‘ENOUGH’ IN YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM.

Then, when presented with the Miller-Urey experiment, you changed your claim again. It went from ‘no organization’ to ‘it doesn’t produce all the amino acids needed for life at the same time and in sufficient quantities’.
Here’s the quote so those reading know I am not being dishonest in my paraphrasing above, shown by single quotes, ‘, instead of double quotes, “.
It did not make life, nor did it even make half enough to make life. It didn't make a third of life. It didn't make a tenth of the needed material for life.

There was NO MENTION of forming amino acids in your original claim. There was no mention of ‘at the same time’ in your original claim. No mention of ‘in sufficient quantities’ in your original claim. Your claim is now ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and you STILL CLAIM THAT I HAVE NOT MET IT, but you are only able to do so because it is NOT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM. That is a textbook-class example of moving the goal posts. And it is a VERY dishonest tactic.

For a reference as to exactly what it is, here is a textbook in ebook form:
HUMBUG! eBook by Jef Clark and Theo Clark
The section on moving the goalposts starts on page 92 of the book, which will be listed as 97/150 on the page select due to things like inclusion of the covers. Yes, I went out of my way to find a non-wiki source for you.

Furthermore, roads were around long before tires, and not all tired vehicles even need roads. And comparing the use of wind energy to existing species spontaneously sprouting completed and completely new features to harness it is completely ridiculous and not at all what was claimed.

You have ALSO completely ignored the formulation of the SLoT and my explanations of why it doesn’t even apply to life on the surface of the earth in the first place.

And finally on this topic, so what? It has already been admitted that the exact process of the formation of life on earth isn’t known. If you keep moving the goalposts, that’s where it will end up. How does that help your argument/side/whatever any? It has already been admitted that the exact mechanism is unknown. Your goalpost moving has been called on and catalogued, as has your ignoring the ‘closed system’ requirement of the SLoT for the surface of the earth, and the proper definition of entropy. “I don’t know how abiogenesis happened at this point in time” is not evidence against abiogenesis, it isn’t evidence against evolution, and it isn’t evidence FOR creationism. So what is the point of continuing? The argument about evolution disobeying the SLoT is wrong from the get go... and we haven’t even gotten to the actual evolution part of it yet!

So, you’ve misapplied the SLoT by ignoring the conditions it requires, you’ve moved the goalposts, your argument cannot and will not yield anything more than what has already been admitted, and most importantly, yields zero creationism evidence.

IS there any creationism evidence? Instead of carrying on with this train wreck, do you have some positive evidence to propose to show why creationism SHOULD be considered science? Or is all you have negative arguments?

Micro evolution is scientificly proven, macro evolution has no proof and is sensationalism.
How is it sensationalism? The formation of new species has been evidenced and documented between when Darwin proposed evolution and now. There are also fossils and genetics and homology, and so on. How it is sensationalism?

Metherion
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

good brother

Guest
There is NOTHING about life in that statement, just chaos and organization (which aren’t even entropy in and of themselves, so you haven’t even been arguing about the right thing!)

THEN, AFTER I presented my examples, you discounted some (wind, deep sea thermal vents) for things being ‘designed’ to use them. THAT ELEMENT WAS NOWHERE IN YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT. You moved the goalposts.

On my idea of lightning and sand, you said that it wasn’t ‘enough’ because the sand didn’t become ‘stained glass’. THERE WAS NO QUALIFIER OF ANY AMOUNT OF ORGANIZATION BEING ‘ENOUGH’ IN YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM.
Here is why I have not moved any goal posts. I talked about the disorganization thing because you were attempting to indicate that the use of those energies to CREATE life, all I was saying with my original post (and apparently I need to clarify myself in the future) that those things are not organizers, they are sustainers. Birds (flighted ones) use the wind to to what they were already designed to do. Just like flowers use the sun for photosynthesis since they have been designed for that. And even though birds use the wind, I have seen birds struggle in the face of a strong wind, and flowers can die by the same source that gives them life. Fish use water because they are designed for life in the water but that same water can wash them ashore and kill them. Do you see what I am trying to say?

Then, when presented with the Miller-Urey experiment, you changed your claim again. It went from ‘no organization’ to ‘it doesn’t produce all the amino acids needed for life at the same time and in sufficient quantities’.
Here’s the quote so those reading know I am not being dishonest in my paraphrasing above, shown by single quotes, ‘, instead of double quotes, “.


There was NO MENTION of forming amino acids in your original claim. There was no mention of ‘at the same time’ in your original claim. No mention of ‘in sufficient quantities’ in your original claim. Your claim is now ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and you STILL CLAIM THAT I HAVE NOT MET IT, but you are only able to do so because it is NOT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM. That is a textbook-class example of moving the goal posts. And it is a VERY dishonest tactic.
Are you married? Did your wife tell you everything about herself on your first date? Even the second date? I would bet that even at the wedding there was stuff you didn't know about her. My point is, Do I have to tell everything I know about everything I know anything about everytime I talk about anything I talk about? I really don't like you saying I have dishonest tactics just because I bring up different points at different times in our conversation. I guess I am sorry you feel that way.

For a reference as to exactly what it is, here is a textbook in ebook form:
HUMBUG! eBook by Jef Clark and Theo Clark
The section on moving the goalposts starts on page 92 of the book, which will be listed as 97/150 on the page select due to things like inclusion of the covers. Yes, I went out of my way to find a non-wiki source for you.
I do appreciate the non wiki source. Thank you sir.

Furthermore, roads were around long before tires, and not all tired vehicles even need roads. And comparing the use of wind energy to existing species spontaneously sprouting completed and completely new features to harness it is completely ridiculous and not at all what was claimed.
But transportation did not stem from the existence of roads, roads came about from the needs of transportation.

You have ALSO completely ignored the formulation of the SLoT and my explanations of why it doesn’t even apply to life on the surface of the earth in the first place.
I guess I didn't think we had gotten that far yet.;)

And finally on this topic, so what? It has already been admitted that the exact process of the formation of life on earth isn’t known. If you keep moving the goalposts, that’s where it will end up. How does that help your argument/side/whatever any? It has already been admitted that the exact mechanism is unknown. Your goalpost moving has been called on and catalogued, as has your ignoring the ‘closed system’ requirement of the SLoT for the surface of the earth, and the proper definition of entropy. “I don’t know how abiogenesis happened at this point in time” is not evidence against abiogenesis, it isn’t evidence against evolution, and it isn’t evidence FOR creationism. So what is the point of continuing? The argument about evolution disobeying the SLoT is wrong from the get go... and we haven’t even gotten to the actual evolution part of it yet!
The point is, if we don't know how life started, why couldn't have been just like the Bible says? Why couldn't we just take God at His word? Why do we have to assume that He was incorrect when He described the events that He supposedly did?

So, you’ve misapplied the SLoT by ignoring the conditions it requires, you’ve moved the goalposts, your argument cannot and will not yield anything more than what has already been admitted, and most importantly, yields zero creationism evidence.
Again, couldn't we just take the Bible at it's word? I mean, hey, we are trusting it for our eternal salvation, why not trust it on it's history?

IS there any creationism evidence? Instead of carrying on with this train wreck, do you have some positive evidence to propose to show why creationism SHOULD be considered science? Or is all you have negative arguments?
I have listed some: hydrologic sorting, lack of transition fossils, and specialty design of the animal kingdom.

I hope this helps.

In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Micro evolution is a birds beak adapting to a new plant, etc. Macro evolution is we evolved from some soup in a volcano after the "big bang" which is not testable and can not be proven.

Giving me examples from the extreme ends of evolution does not help to establish the boundary between "micro-" and "macro-" I asked for Vhe difference "precisely." I am looking for a benchmark that I can compare any given example to and say "This is 'micro-evolution,' or 'This is macro-evolution,' without there being any doubt. The reason why examples instead of definitions don't work is that they are too vague, and goalpost shifting is so easy that it might go unnoticed.

Take the question of Biblical "kinds," which is sometimes claimed to be boundary (micro-evolution occurs within a "kind"; macro-evolution would have one "kind" become a different kind). "Kind" is usually equated with species, at least until something like a Ring species or a mule is introduced into the discussion. Suddenly "kind" (and the boundary between micro- and macro- evolution) is not the same as species, but is some higher (but unspecified) level in the taxonomy.

As far as humans evolving from apes there has never been ONE missing link fossel found and since even micro evolutoin takes many years you would think there would be 500-1000 years or more of "missing links" walking the earth.

I don't understand why you are introducing transitional hominid fossils into the discussion at this point. They have nothing to do with my questions to you.

There is no point in discussing whether any of the myriad hominid fossils are transitional until we know what would be a transitional hominid, and what would be an ape or a human. And again, we need to know where the boundary between "micro-" and "macro-" lies.

Similarly, your rant below is unresponsive to my questions. I'll be glad to point out the flaws in your position as expressed there when the discussion catches up. But you must lay a strong foundation before you can build a house.

It does not wash and should not be taught. People pushing this stuff is why we are falling behind the rest of the world. While we argue about apes other nations are learning trig and going on to do engineering and design. Maybe spend 20 min in one class in biology discussiong micro evolution and then get on to cross breading and other more relavent useful topics.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Are you married? Did your wife tell you everything about herself on your first date? Even the second date? I would bet that even at the wedding there was stuff you didn't know about her. My point is, Do I have to tell everything I know about everything I know anything about everytime I talk about anything I talk about? I really don't like you saying I have dishonest tactics just because I bring up different points at different times in our conversation. I guess I am sorry you feel that way.

When you are negotiating a contract with someone (or laying a foundation for an in depth discussion) and he has hidden assumptions, especially if those assumptions are not shared by you, when they come out -- as dealbreakers --only after you have spent the time and energy to fulfill your side of the negotiation, it is hard not to assume that he was negotiating in good faith, even if, from his perspective he was (or thought he was).

Consider how you would feel if you spent seven years courting a wife, and negotiating her hand with her father, only to find out the morning after the wedding that it was not your girlfriend, but her older sister who was under the veil and in the marriage bed. When you confront your father-in-law about it, he claims that he thought you knew that you were contracting for the older girl.

So, no you don't have to spell out every tittle and jot of your position in the first overtures of the discussion, but neither should you claim that X, Y, and Z are what Metherion needs to show, and when he does show them, "Oh, by the way you also need to show A, B, and C."
 
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Micro evolution is a birds beak adapting to a new plant, etc. Macro evolution is we evolved from some soup in a volcano after the "big bang" which is not testable and can not be proven. As far as humans evolving from apes there has never been ONE missing link fossel found and since even micro evolutoin takes many years you would think there would be 500-1000 years or more of "missing links" walking the earth.

It does not wash and should not be taught. People pushing this stuff is why we are falling behind the rest of the world. While we argue about apes other nations are learning trig and going on to do engineering and design. Maybe spend 20 min in one class in biology discussiong micro evolution and then get on to cross breading and other more relavent useful topics.

It must be nice to not be a scientist and be able to move the goalposts until your argument works.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If any one is moving goal posts it's the evolutionist who can't find any transitions.

Um, we do have them. Creationists flat-out ignore them.

They should not be hard to find if evolution were true, they would be scattered all over the ground like sand.

Ok, so you don't have any idea how fossilization works. That isn't criminal, but you really should rectify that before complaining about a supposed paucity of them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I am not a biologist but I can take a stab at what you are talking about. Micro would be changes that occure within a given species that do not significantly change that species (like a bird beak changing). Macro is when the evolution is significant enough that it would be considered a change from one species to another (like an ape to a man, thats why I brought that up). I dont study biology as a chemical and electrical engineer but I am pretty sure no fossils have ever been found that show one species totally changing into another. Macro evolution would also be life evolving from nothing like in a ooze after the big bang, there has never been any discovery of such things ever as far as I know.

I've put your problems here in bold text. You are wrong about speciation not having been observed by the way. And "micro" and "macro" are a Creationist false dichotomy.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Metherion,
I bet you could. And then there are all those pesky fossils that have features of both that you’ve been ignoring and dismissing.
So what, humans and chimps have many common features but there is no observable proof we evolved from chimps, there is only the assumption we did. And it is to the assumption both a creator and a biological evolution are possible.
From intelligentdesign.org:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
So, if God designed the natural laws, including those that gave rise to natural selection, that is not intelligent design, because ID specifically states that such things are not sufficient.
My original response was ‘then’ from what you were saying it would be intelligent design and to us, God; regardless of what the intelligentdesign.org site says.
If your answer to my question was no, the laws were not created by God, then the laws came about themselves.
Be careful to understand the argument being put to you. God can change what is commonly called ‘the laws of nature.’
No, because evolution itself is a process, not an intelligent agency.
No, the process of evolution is a assumption of how life became more numerous and complex, God creating it is another assumption.
Actually, the progressive complexity contraindicates ID because if ID were the case, new things would just pop up, with no precursors, or progress up to it, or whatever.
I am not arguing for an intelligent design, but for God’s creation. As to your premise and considering the timelines inherent in evolution, there is no reason anything would ‘pop’ up in our lifetime.
My point is that the fossil and dating evidence just shows the progressive complexity of life forms, there is no proof that what are called transitional forms are not merely species in their own right. There is no demonstration of a new animal kingdom happening now or in the past, but as with the example of Tikaalic the question is how would a species reproduce to adapt to an environment it doesn’t know? Its no use saying bit by bit as none of the environment is necessarily known. Tikaalic is a fossil, sure we make reasonable deductions that its lobed fins could support its weight but we also see they are unlikely to move it about. It lives in the sea according to the evolutionary theory though it appears to have breathing aparatus. According to the assumptions it cannot walk around on land and eat vegetation. To do so it must reproduce with lobes that can walk and know what it can eat on land.
No. The science is that X happened. The philosophy is that X happened with/without God. The philosophy is not taught in science classes, even if it is spread by the likes of Dawkins and AIG and such.
Ah, but I accept that and remember I am not saying evolution couldn’t be possible, but the level of objection to science saying this is the fossil and dating evidence, which could be explained by evolution or an intelligent design, or God, shows many refuse to accept its a theory.
Then tell us what would satisfy you so it can be presented.
No I am asking you to present something that supports your claim. A new strain of virus is still a virus just as Tiktaalic was a fish and Icthyostega a tetrapod right? Or were they both fishapods? I have outlined why I don’t see how the supposed evolution between Tiktaalic and the likes of Icthyostega can work,.
So, again, what would satisfy you? Fossilized life that doesn’t fit into any kingdoms present prior to life that does, as evidence of differentiation? Or what?
Who said it doesnt fit, when one looks at the fossils of Tiktaalic one is already making a decision that it is a fish or a tetrapod based on the characteristics one has already set for fish and tetrapods. One is already making the assumption that it did have breathing apparatus, a reasonable assumption sure, but nevertheless an assumption. Why couldn’t one could call all these ‘fishapods’ a separate group along with fish and tetrapods? Perhaps God created fish then fishapods then tetrapods?
The scientific theory of evolution. If it is claimed that a law prevents it, the law preventing it must be prevented. 
And tiktaalik is not the only transitional, ever. Try doing a google search for it, or looking on talk.origins (and then going to the sources it lists if you don’t like compliations.) Go to ACTUAL sources, not just AIG or ICR or other dishonest creationist organizations.
Ok so in response to my scepticism about the theory of evolution you are presenting me with the theory of evolution . Sorry but that convinces me evolution is without proof.
Tiktaalic is the example I chose, the same doubts about Tiktaalic can be presented for other so called transitional fossils.
When? By what or whom? What evidence would show that?
Its an assumption like evolution, we have seen neither God create fish and tetrapods, nor a fish evolve into a tetrapod.
What evidence challenges that NONE of it happened? Religious texts aren’t evidence, by the way.
The evidence shows that life forms became more diverse numerous and complex. Who has said it didnt? Why would you as a Christian want to eliminate the word of God from the evidence?

 
SO, no matter what, you have made up your mind that there will never be enough, and your preconceived notion that you will refuse to change is that there aren’t any, and will never be enough. Is that right?
So you can make things up with your mind but others cant? What sort of an argument is that? Are you saying the points made are not valid? If so please address them.
 
The evolution that is ‘too slow to observe’ is in species with very long generations (like whales), very large populations with a lot of gene flow (like humans), and at higher levels (like family). No pick and choose about it.
There is no evolution. If its too slow to observe you can no more prove it that we can prove it was God. The argument you put forward for gradual evolution is not proof, it is merely reasoned assumption.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freedom63

Universal Reconciliationist (Eventually)
Aug 4, 2011
1,108
37
Indiana
✟1,527.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is discernable proof of evolution and has been for a long time. Just because we don't understand all the specific steps does not mean we have no proof. And as for proof we evolved from apes...this is a misunderstang as well. Since we have mapped the human genome we have acuired undeniable proof that we evolved from a common ancestor. All one needs to do is familiarize themselves with real science to resolve the matter in their minds. Evolution is not a "theory" the way biblical literalists attempt to portray it. This is promoted out of a profound ignorance of science. It is a fact that we evolved...the issue has been proven. And it has no bearing on the existance or creative power of God. To the atheist it will mean there is no God. To the believer it will mean God created through evolution. Scientific conspiracy theories about the entire community coming together to deny God's existance really are the most laughable of all the literal creationists theories.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.