A thread on evolution

[pitabread]

you don't want to know. I have never seen it answered in 10 years.

Right. I'm guessing it's an inherently nonsensical question to begin with.

 

[Obliquinaut]

like I said been doing this for over ten years, here, and over 20 years on the streets. So I get my own viewpoint. But this OP is about evolution, not mine own positions.

And now I've sat through his video. What do you think is compelling about his points on evolution? Why did you post it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

his appeal is not for the "technical details" it's in the obvious, as the title of the movie shows.

I watched the video. I know you are incorrect. He makes a BIG point of the technical nature of DNA. The complexity. Did YOU watch it? There were scenes where he's showing strands of DNA and in the background there are all these equations written out. You KNOW he's trying to get people to hook in with the technical. He wants to leverage this "complexity" to prove that it can't exist without God.

But of course he won't go into the nitty gritty and he will simply blow off Krauss's perfectly rational response to his points. And when that fails he badgers people with threats of hell.

if it were technical, he would lose alot of people.

Yes, which is why I DRESSES IT UP with all the technical stuff. He knows his audience is largely incapable of understanding the technical counter positions. That's also why he focuses on kids.

I understand you may be very IMPRESSED with Ray's logic, but as I pointed out there was literally nothing new and there were some standard howlers of Philosophy 101 caliber.

Common sense? Yeah, usually that is invoked by people to avoid having the do the heavy lifting of actually thinking through a point in detail.

 

[Obliquinaut]

you don't want to know. I have never seen it answered in 10 years.

What is your question? There is literally NO REASON to hide it from people. You have a question? Or do you have an ANSWER and you want to force all the questions into it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I knew it would be a waste of time to listen to a Creationist and do what they asked. It is ALWAYS like this.

They post dreadful hour long wastes of time produced by someone else and they refuse to explain what they found interesting, they just WHINE until someone watches it and then they run away from discussing it.

IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL "WITNESSING"?

Thanks, can you give my hour back now?

As I said I've been in this game for 30 years and I was not expecting to be surprised by anything in the video. Indeed I wasn't. Color me shocked.

But the bigger question remains: why is it so important to Grady that others do his bidding but he doesn't have to do anything for anyone else, even explain his own position?

I am reminded of Luke 6:31. (Grady, that's a chapter and verse in the BIBLE)

 

[pitabread]

I have many thoughts on evolution, but mainly that on a micro level it's true. Getting over a virus, or cold for example. Immunities for example. But even though I got over a cold I am still human. Macro evolution claims that a monkey can become a man, or a bird into a dinosaur, or a dog like creature in to a whale. All extremely unlikely.

The nice thing about all of this is you don't have to accept any science you don't like. You have the free choice to reject what you want. Because in the end, your personal rejection or acceptance of that science doesn't really change the scientific inquiry being performed.

What was fascinating to me when I started studying evolution was the applications of it. Especially applications of evolutionary relationships via phylogenetics. Everything from applications to agriculture to pharmaceuticals and medical research to conservation biology...

So the funny thing to me about all of this is you could end up inadvertently benefiting from the very science you reject. It could be the food you eat tomorrow, medical treatment you receive in the future, who knows. That's the beauty of science: one doesn't necessarily need to subscribe to the underlying basis for scientific discovery to benefit from it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Right. I'm guessing it's an inherently nonsensical question to begin with.

well I notice when i ask the questions, evolutionists tend to flee away, and never come back. I don't want you too flee just yet.

 

[createdtoworship]

The nice thing about all of this is you don't have to accept any science you don't like. You have the free choice to reject what you want. Because in the end, your personal rejection or acceptance of that science doesn't really change the scientific inquiry being performed.

What was fascinating to me when I started studying evolution was the applications of it. Especially applications of evolutionary relationships via phylogenetics. Everything from applications to agriculture to pharmaceuticals and medical research to conservation biology...

So the funny thing to me about all of this is you could end up inadvertently benefiting from the very science you reject. It could be the food you eat tomorrow, medical treatment you receive in the future, who knows. That's the beauty of science: one doesn't necessarily need to subscribe to the underlying basis for scientific discovery to benefit from it.

all that is micro evolution. And yes, I thank God for micro evolution. It's a wonderful thing. I question macro evolution.

 

[pitabread]

well I notice when i ask the questions, evolutionists tend to flee away, and never come back.

 

[Gene2memE]

this coming from one who didn't even watch the video. I can tell.

No, you can't.

I've watched it before. Multiple time. I even participated in Google hangouts live debunking of it.

I've seen it enough that I'm no longer infuriated by it, I'm just BORED with it.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Macro evolution claims that a monkey can become a man

It does? Huh. Why would that happen?

, or a bird into a dinosaur

Actually it's the other way around.

, or a dog like creature in to a whale. All extremely unlikely.

Well, sure, when you ignore the evidence of cetacean evolution it WOULD be unlikely!

 

[Obliquinaut]

well I notice when i ask the questions, evolutionists tend to flee away, and never come back. I don't want you too flee just yet.

You know I don't see that very often. Usually I see scientists more than happy to explain the science in gory detail. At that point usually the Creationist decrees that it was either tl;dr or inappropriate to a discussion forum.

Hmmm.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you can't.

I've watched it before. Multiple time. I even participated in Google hangouts live debunking of it.

I've seen it enough that I'm no longer infuriated by it, I'm just BORED with it.

I am talking about the atheist delusion specifically.

 

[Job 33:6]

if your life could be changed in an hour would you do it?

Sure, but there needs to be some sort of indication that that hour, would indeed change my life. Its why you sample cake before you go and buy the whole thing. To get a taste of if it is worth while before going all in.

 

[createdtoworship]

And now I've sat through his video. What do you think is compelling about his points on evolution? Why did you post it?

I posted it for one thing, the results of the information. I have never seen an atheist convert, yet multiple atheists convert in only a few minutes. amazing.

 

[pitabread]

all that is micro evolution. And yes, I thank God for micro evolution. It's a wonderful thing. I question macro evolution.

"Micro" and "macro" evolution aren't really proper defined terms in biology. While they do get used in scientific literature, they tend to be used colloquially more than anything.

But regardless, that's beside the point. The science of phlyogenetics is applied regardless of whether we're talking about comparisons of agricultural plants or pathogens like HIV to comparisons of higher order taxa like humans to other primates or other mammals. And while there can be differences in methodologies due to relative levels of evolutionary divergence, the scientific underpinning is all the same: evolutionary relationships of organisms.

For example, here's a comparative genomic paper related to mammalian milk genes (primarily focused on bovine milk genes), whereby they make use of phylogenetic comparisons with other mammals: The bovine lactation genome: insights into the evolution of mammalian milk | Genome Biology | Full Text

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure, but there needs to be some sort of indication that that hour, would indeed change my life. Its why you sample cake before you go and buy the whole thing. To get a taste of if it is worth while before going all in.

obliquinot said that ray did better than he thought initially. That is worth saying. I think obliquinot is a phd and has done peer review work. so his word travels far with me.

 

[Gene2memE]

I am talking about the atheist delusion specifically.

Yeah, so am I.

I had to make notes. I watched it, pausing and rewinding, for about 6 hours.

It was terrible.

 

[Job 33:6]

obliquinot said that ray did better than he thought initially. That is worth saying. I think obliquinot is a phd and has done peer review work. so his word travels far with me.

What exactly do you find compelling in the video itself? What specifically about its substance do you feel is worth hearing?

You know, when conveying a message, typically you lay out your objective, you describe your supporting ideas, then you close with clarity and precision.

An hour long video though is going to talk about countless topics, its going to derive a variety of conclusions. Some simple, some complex. So to get a point across, its best to summarize, otherwise your message wont be conveyed. At the very least, key points should be stated.

 

[Occams Barber]

I posted it for one thing, the results of the information. I have never seen an atheist convert, yet multiple atheists convert in only a few minutes. amazing.

You (and Ray) are making the classic mistake common to many fundamentalist anti-atheist/anti evolution arguments.

You (and Ray) have conflated evolution with atheism.

I'm an atheist. If I decided tomorrow that evolution is bunk I would still be an atheist. Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods, NOT an acceptance of evolution.

Many Christians accept the concept of evolution. They are still Christians. There are Christian biologists who apply evolutionary principles as part of their everyday work. They are still Christians.

You (and Ray) need to learn the difference.
OB