TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
If you have something to say, just say it.Hey hey my new friend
Do you still want to know what im up to?
Upvote
0
As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter _____a_____
- Start date
xianghua
Well-Known Member
please dont blame me in your own ignorance. convergent evolution can also result in the same function:
How Evolution Gave Some Fish Their Electric Powers
"They found that the same genes were similarly manipulated, all with the same effect: Tweaking the muscle cell genetic code as a blueprint for a little organic battery."
again incorrect. convergent evolution can happen even at the molecular level according to evolution:
Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes
"A new analysis suggests that many genes evolved in parallel in bats and dolphins as each developed the remarkable ability to echolocate."
Upvote
0
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
That doesn't anything to counter the point I made.
There are multiple genetic pathways to accomplish the same thing.
Same as above.
All these things are addressed in the wiki article I linked to in the post you are replying to.
They are not a problem. Except in your head, where everything is a problem unless it agrees with the fundamentalist religious beliefs that you have decided to clinge to.
Upvote
0
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Hey heyThank you for helping me understand.
You intend to draw comparison between a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry - and God.
You do so for the purpose of explanation or clarification? What do you wish to clarify or explain by using a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry - and God?
Lets say - for fun - english is not my first language, does that justify prejudicial treatment? What does that justify?
Say you do infact have an idea or impression of my person (without certain proof). How does that effect your feelings?
No you did not my dear. You are now suggesting you used a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. What was the intention to apply it to a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry?
Or you used it as a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else? What were you representing? What is symbolic when we consider a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry?
Please excuse me my dear. My question here was not meant as contempt. Icon - "Would you preach this leprechaun entity to me?". I will explain why im interested in your conversation.
Lets consider the substance of what is being debated.
We have a situation where Daniel believes A is true and Samuel believes B is fiction.
Lets imagine a beautiful countryside and 2 unlikely friends on a journey of a life time. Daniel and Samuel were enjoying each others company and decided to park up somewhere to take in the sunset.
Daniel reflects on the beauty and majesty of his surroundings and declares "he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence. If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons."
Samuel replies "But that is a tautological argument, and thus an epistemological hindrance."
Daniel looked into samuels eyes and said "I insist omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God", Samuel replies "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"
Have i got the below context right?
Samuel has suggested that A and B are not real and there is as much evidence for B compared to A? Samuel assumes A and B are in the same category?
Please excuse me. It seems i have an issue understanding modern english. What is meant by sub-A. And Sub-B.
Well lets examine your 'analogy' and - methaphor?!? - some more.
Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction.
Samuel says "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)".
At that moment an old but very cool gentleman walked by named iconoclast who was curious about the conversation and what he observed.
Samuel continues "I CAN (posit that B is real) ....and IF I DID, it would be no different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe."
So do it?
Lets see if you can and if it would be no different?
Put your money where your mouth is and prove what you are saying?
Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God, well dont be shy show me how you do so?
In this scenario you are Samuel. If you do not like the name samuel i can change it to Jack Coolman or prehaps Eugene Schneider?
Cheers lets continue. Things are getting interesting my dear
You see the argument about the Lepricorn as absurd, without merit, perhaps even silly. Good. That was the intention. It was SUPPOSED to be an example of a tautological argument from which we cannot gain any knowledge.
It was intended to show why a tautological argument has no merit. Both Daniel and Samuel have stated that their respective entities perform certain supernatural functions. And IF either of their entities exist, then those supernatural functions are performed.
A person can assign any attribute he or she wants to god, and then claim that if that version of god exists, then he has that attribute. But that says nothing about whether a god with that attribute actually exists or not. Indeed, it's a meaningless, empty statement.
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
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
yes, but being a sonar system or being a wing is not evidence of design. So if an animal has a sonar system and a man-made machine has a sonar system it is not evidence that the animal's sonar system is designed. Only indications that the sonar system was intentionally manufactured would be evidence of design. The functionality similarities of the sonar systems are not evidence of design.
If an animal has a wing and a man-made machine has a wing and they both can fly, that functional similarity is not evidence that the animal was designed. Only evidence that the animal was intentionally manufactured would be evidence of design.
Functional similarity to a designed object is not evidence of design. Your "analogies" all fail on that basis.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Do tell - as usual, feel free to go beyond your usual cryptic rhetoric and use appropriate terminology and provide actual scientific explanations.
Thanks for unwittingly admitting that you possess a very shallow and naive understanding of how DNA is used in evolutionary biology.
Here is a hint - similarity is nice, but it is not actually the most informative data provided by DNA comparisons.
But again, Do tell - as usual, feel free to go beyond your usual cryptic rhetoric and use appropriate terminology and provide actual scientific explanations.
Ah, the old AiG version of 'real science.'
If we were to take your 'definition' of the scientific method above and employ it, I dare say we would be getting nowhere fast.
Regarding "'seeing is believing'" - do you think that means 'seeing' the actual event under investigation?
If one is a volcanologist or seismologist, how does that work, exactly? If someone is studying the effects of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, can they not study at all unless they were there in 1906?
Might it really be 'see' the testing/observation results?
"see it, observe it, or test it under normal conditions"
Is there a difference between 'seeing' and 'observing' something?
And what do you mean by "normal conditions"?
Please, with your AiG grasp of science, describe how one might do a 'real science' investigation. Your choice of subject.
For you, but who cares? You are a 'God said, I believe it, that is that' zealot with an excess of ego/Dunning-Kruger effect, as is the case with nearly all YEC types.
People that understand the evidence are cool with it.
It is so precious how you focus solely on the fossil record when you know that there are other lines of evidence - AND you don;t know much about fossils, to boot.
According to some random internet bible zealot. Who should care?
And do keep in mind - "Saying what you don't want to hear... doesn't mean it's not civil."
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That is not a calculation, that is an assertion.
What makes you think evolution operates in this fashion - randomly trying random assemblages of proteins when it really needs a specific one?
Do you think the human proteome (or any proteome) is collection of 100% unique 'trial and error' searches of all of functional sequence space?
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
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
First things first -
Define "kind" as it relates to actual biology.
Why should your opinion be considered relevant on this matter?
You think and assert that but you never demonstrate it. When asked to do so, you re-state your assertions. When presented with evidence you ignore it or dismiss it. IOW, you are a typical internet trollish-creationist, desperate to prop up that which you have been programmed to accept at all costs.
Prove me wrong.
And with your vast pretend knowledge of these things, what SHOULD the fossil record show?
Here is an analogy to demonstrate how naive your predictable 'opinion' is:
Nearly all cases of dwarfism are produced via spontaneous mutations in a particular gene. A single point mutation in a single gene. This mutation produces disproportionate limb to torso length, reduced interphalangeal joints, shortened nasal bones, etc.
So a parent with normal phenotype gives birth to a child with dwarfism.
Given your uniniformed rantings about the fossil record, were you to see the skeletons of the normal parent and her achondroplastic offspring, you would have to declare them to be different "kinds".
Point is, while the underlying impetus for the changes we see in fossils (bones) occur at a 'gradual', long-term rate, the outcomes of those mutations - the morphology produced by them - may be large or small. There is no 1-to-1 relationship between mutations and development/morphology. Expecting there to be some sort of sliding-scale continuum of fossils were evolution true not only shows an ignorance of how fossils form, but an ignorance of underlying biology that produces morphological change.
IOW, you are twofold out of your depth on this 1 issue and you are too self-righteous and prideful to allow this to even be a possibility.
And do keep in mind - "Saying what you don't want to hear... doesn't mean it's not civil."
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,277
- 1,519
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
No, I don't agree. If a person asserts something without supportive evidence, even though it may be true they have no way of knowing that it is true, therefore it is not valid for them to accept the assertion as true. The most that the person can do is to treat the assertion as a possibility, not as something that can be validly accepted as a truth.
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,277
- 1,519
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Either you have misunderstood the question or you are answering the wrong question. The question is not whether scientists are likely to find evidence for macro-evolution or whether they have found evidence for macro-evolution; it is what conceivable observations would be valid evidence for macro-evolution.
No scientific theory is ever proved; it is always possible that new evidence will be found that will overturn any theory. As a result, every scientist has at the back of their mind the questions, 'What if I am wrong? What if this theory is wrong? What evidence would be enough to disprove this theory?' A scientist can never say that there is no possible evidence that would disprove the theory.
Let me draw an analogy. I don't believe that aliens have visited the Earth, that King Arthur was a real person, or that there are plesiosaurs living in Loch Ness. Therefore I do not expect anybody to find evidence for visiting aliens, a historical King Arthur, or Scottish plesiosaurs. However, I can imagine evidence that would force me to change my mind (e.g. a flying saucer landing at Cape Canaveral and little green men getting out of it, a 6th-century written eye-witness account of the marriage of Arthur and Guinevere, or the carcass of a plesiosaur floating in Loch Ness). I do not mean that any such thing is ever likely to happen or to be discovered, only that if it were to happen or to be discovered it would be valid evidence for the thing in question.
If you are right, then obviously there can be no evidence for macro-evolution, and no such evidence will ever be discovered. However, whether you are right or wrong, there must be some conceivable (although not actual) observations that would be valid evidence for evolution. Can you imagine any such observations that would require you to change your mind?
Last edited:
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
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey my dear
A formula of propositional logic is a tautology if the formula itself is always true regardless of which valuation is used for the propositional variables.
Then you say its an analogy and then you say you are using a methaphor. Which one is it my new teacher of modern english?
Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God, well dont be shy show me how you do so? You do not.
So you cannot POSIT (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?
You cannot (posit that B is real) ....and IF you can you would have done so. It is different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe?
What you say my highly educated friend
Upvote
0
Similar threads
