Consider This Article

[pitabread]

It shows that atheism and evolutionism are both a religion; while showing that Christianity is not.

One non-sequitur after another I see.

At any rate, you've already indicated you don't know what the word religion means, so I suppose it's a moot point.

 

[USincognito]

One non-sequitur after another I see.

At any rate, you've already indicated you don't know what the word religion means, so I suppose it's a moot point.

Why do you guys even waste your time?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This single line right here... instantly disqualifies you from any discussion on evolution science.

Fixed that for you

 

[pitabread]

Why do you guys even waste your time?

Creationists on this forum fascinate me. It's like visiting an alternate reality and interacting with representatives of an alien culture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists on this forum fascinate me. It's like visiting an alternate reality and interacting with representatives of an alien culture.

Welcome to the world of faith.

A world that realizes God is, and is active in our lives.

The spiritual world interfaces with the physical world, and the results are churches, holidays, literature, the Bible, changed lives and everything right down to bumper stickers proclaiming the Gospel.

Sorry that's so foreign to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL

6. Why do we keep bothering to reply to AV?

Five years later:

Why do you guys even waste your time?

 

[Anguspure]

I'm sorry bu there's too much sciency talk and trying to be clever in this message for me to discern a clear, cogent point - especially one germane to the point I was making about evolution. Again, the origin of life on earth, be it abiogenesis, panspermia, creation by God or whatever, has zero effect on evolution.

Evolution only explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record and only applies to already living things that reproduce and pass on genetic material to offspring.

"Evolution" explains nothing. Rather it is a name that we give to the observation that biological inventions have changed over the time that they have existed.

A theoretical mechanism has been put forward (by Charles Darwin) that invokes the observed breeding mechanism of natural selection and the theory later developed to include genetic mutations as being the mechanism of change to be selected upon.

Having demonstrated very ably that the mechanism is superb at altering species in order to ensure survivability in an ever changing environment on Earth (and nobody disputes this), the theory is then extrapolated wildly to propose that it could be responsible for all of the variables and novelties of biology across all living things having begun from an accident in a pre-biotic soup.

There is actually no evidence for this extraplolation (Fossil evidence simply points to different things having existed a long time ago, Novelties suddenly appear in the historic record with no antecedant, attempts to form coherent and consistent evolutionary trees across different approaches fail, Genetics makes the water even muddier etc etc) and that every attempt to repeat the effect in the real world is (perhaps) dissapointing (and yes some examples of succesful ND evolution are evident).

 

[Anguspure]

Physicists still haven't figured out what gravity is or developed a unified theory of gravity. Why isn't anyone here complaining about that?

Because gravity is repeatable and flasifiable. With a basic understanding of gravity I can demonstrate it right now. I just dropped a shopkins basket....see? Gravity.

I can also demonstrate animal breeding. See I will take my 2 dogs and mate them with a diffferent breed....see Mendel was right.

Behe conducted the same experiment by observing HIV, Malaria and the E-Coli project. Each of these reproduce and mutate at alarming rates. For example it is estimated that HIV mutates at a single point perhaps a million times daily in an HIV positive patient. Between these three organisms over millions and millions of generations only 1 (dual point) mutation was observed that gave selective advantage to that organism and so is preserved by NS. That is the mutation tha caused Malaria to gain resistence to Chloroquine.

So Behe finds that the ND theory is correct. It does in fact happen, but to say that it does not happen at a rate that could be extrapolated to provide explanation for biological diversity within the time frame allowed (3.8 billion years) is a massive understatement, and the truth is that Darwins theory is little more than a molecular fiddler that fine tunes and preserves species living in a given environment.

 

[RealityCheck01]

But it's still a terrible headline. The study concluded that 90% of animals living today evolved within 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. That's quite a bit different than what the headline suggests.

To make this a bit clearer: it is generic diversity that evolved during that period.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The supposed magic that gets the ball of evolution moving up mount improbable and leaping up every step on the way is not repeatable, not testable and its adherants deny it's falsifiability.

11 June 2018 Anguspure: Abiogenesis ignorance.
It is irrational to expect that we repeat processes that took millions of years to happen.
The existence of life is the test that life began!
Abiogenesis via chemistry can easily be falsified. Show that aliens created the first cells. Show that bacteria somehow arrived here from outer space. Gather scientific evidence that God exists and that God created the first cells.

FYI, for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution has tests and how they passed. We have the classic falsifiability of finding rabbits in the Precambrian!

 

[RealityCheck01]

"Evolution" explains nothing.

11 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that evolution explains nothing when it explains a lot.
Evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[AV1611VET]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

A Critique of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[RealityCheck01]

... It does in fact happen, but to say that it does not happen at a rate that could be extrapolated to provide explanation for biological diversity within the time frame allowed (3.8 billion years) is a massive understatement, and the truth is that Darwins theory is little more than a molecular fiddler that fine tunes and preserves species living in a given environment.

11 June 2018 Anguspure: Parrots a "biological diversity cannot occur in 3.8 billion years" Behe delusion?
No citation of Behe's published, peer revciwed paper on this. Biologists have no problem with today's biological diversity evolving over 3.8 billion years.

A bit of "molecular fiddler" idiocy (DNA changing to give macroscopic changes and new species is not fiddling) and then a bit of ignorance. If the environment does not change then selection does not happen and in Darwin's theory there is no fine-tuning. The modern fact and theory of evolution has other mechanisms that might not preserve species living in a given environment (genetic drift).

 

[RealityCheck01]

A Critique of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Look at the first "critique" and we see an obvious liar which you should have realized, AV1611VET.
Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.

The similar mechanisms and structures confirming the prediction are then listed.

The lie is that the critique does not show the prediction is wrong. Opinions of creationists in books are not scientific literature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Look at the first "critique" and we see an obvious liar which you should have realized, AV1611VET.

Too bad the author isn't around for rebuttal, isn't it?

Looks like it's his word against yours, eh?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Looks like it's his word against yours, eh?

12 June 2018 AV1611VET: What makes the author a liar is his obvious lies that you did not recognize.
We have the backed up by published science: Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life
The reply to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution starts with the obvious lie that Dr. Theobald has to "address the origin of the first living thing". That is abiogenesis, not evolution.
An obvious lie that Dr. Theobald has to address "the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed". That is evolution that explained in many textbooks and all over the internet.
A lie about a debate about "Neo-Darwinism". Firstly "Neo-Darwinism" does not exist - it is evolution or the modern synthesis. There is no debate in science about the correctness of evolution because of the enormous evidence for it. The main debate is about the importance of mechanisms.

His sources do not have credible opinions.
Walter ReMine is a creationist electrical engineer with no sign of published papers on evolution.
Cornelius G. Hunter is a creationist biophysicist with no sign of published papers on evolution.
Duane Gish was a creationist biochemist with no sign of published papers on evolution.

But if we treat them as credible then they lie because they should know ab ut the facts and theory of evolutions! The author is then parroting their lies.
A ReMine quote starting with an irreverent multiple origins of life, a lie about evolutionary theory not predicting biological universals, a "evolutionary loss and replacement processes could prevent biologic universals" lie.
A Cornelius G. Hunter quote that "concurs" with the ReMine irrelevancy.
A Gish fantasy about creationism.

 

[Anguspure]

11 June 2018 Anguspure: Abiogenesis ignorance.
It is irrational to expect that we repeat processes that took millions of years to happen.

The transition from a pre-biotic soup to a soup that contained a living thing took millions of years? I guess invoking millions of years is one way to haze the distinction between a living thing and a dead thing.

The existence of life is the test that life began!

No kidding batman.....and the mechanism of the beginning?

Abiogenesis via chemistry can easily be falsified.

It is falsified and shown to be false daily. I believe Louis Pasteur is well known for recognising the principle.
It is positively medieval to believe that life can spontaneously arise from a chemical soup and far from scientific.

Show that aliens created the first cells. Show that bacteria somehow arrived here from outer space. Gather scientific evidence that God exists and that God created the first cells.

As Dawkins has pointed out these things would not falsify chemical biogenesis (He is more than happy to consider panspermia, qualified by the idea that chemical biogenesis would have happened on the alien planet).
These things would on the other hand supply confirmatory evidence of the position held by ID advocates.

FYI, for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution has tests and how they passed. We have the classic falsifiability of finding rabbits in the Precambrian!

The page shows me many things that are just as easily explained within an ID framework.

 

[Anguspure]

11 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that evolution explains nothing when it explains a lot.
Evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

That much of the evidence can be shoe horned into an unintelligent framework says nothing.

Besides the whole ND endeavour makes a mockery of reason itself:

 

[Anguspure]

11 June 2018 Anguspure: Parrots a "biological diversity cannot occur in 3.8 billion years" Behe delusion?
No citation of Behe's published, peer revciwed paper on this. Biologists have no problem with today's biological diversity evolving over 3.8 billion years.

Clearly the bioligists that believe this have not considered thier own work.

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296222

A bit of "molecular fiddler" idiocy (DNA changing to give macroscopic changes and new species is not fiddling)

A specific example of this happening is......???

and then a bit of ignorance. If the environment does not change then selection does not happen and in Darwin's theory there is no fine-tuning.

What? No small transitional changes leading to larger developments? So only large macroscopic inventions are permitted? So what is the mechanism of fine tuning that we see in Galapagos Finches?

The modern fact and theory of evolution has other mechanisms that might not preserve species living in a given environment (genetic drift).

Yes and many other variables make the whole concept only more implausible. If only it was as simple as Darwin thought.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That much of the evidence can be shoe horned into an unintelligent framework says nothing.

Replies to
11 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that evolution explains nothing when it explains a lot.
with
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A "an unintelligent framework says nothing" lie about evolution and its evidence.
I linked to Evolution and 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.