Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
tall73 said:Please....now if you are going to say that we are being dishonest, then you must admit that a group COMPLETELY dedicated to arguing one point is biased.
Moreover, the articles I cited from origins magazine have extensive documentation, often from their own research or reputable journals.
So give it up. All sources are biased to one degree or another, but if you cannot even admit a clearing house for evolution is biased you need to step back a bit.
I added more articles to my previous post. Enjoy.
Donkeytron said:You can scream bias all you want, but the point of scientific journals is to eliminate bias through peer review. I have no problem with a group COMPLETELY biased towards objective science. For some strange reason, creationists just don't want to publish in journals that might be read by other scientists. I guess its a massive conspiracy, eh?
tall73 said:A. There is a point underlying evolution and that is long time periods.
B. Geology is separate. But if you can't prove long time periods then the biology is hopeless. The long-earth is inextricably tied to your theory.
C. Yes, of course I am reading it. My point is they have a sudden release of water carving out a huge crater with similarities. Now the fact that they attribute one to a flood ,but not the other is purely their view. The point is your articles said it wasn't possible. It clearly is possible.
And scholarly references? Again, the number of references per article I posted from the Origins site is 33.
tall73 said:So you are saying every article on talk origins is peer reviewed and published?
No, they like the creation sites take arguments from everywhere, only quote what they feel is advantageous to them etc.
Excuse me for speaking plainly, but holding to the view that a group dedicated to arguing one point is unbiased is simply making you look as dishonest as those you have been bashing.
'tall73 said:Evolution does say much about long time periods. How do you propose a single cell organism goes from that to a hugely complex organism COMPLTELY BY MUTATION without long time periods? It is not possible.
tall73 said:Ok, now please explain to me how natural selection brings about variety?
I am afraid you fail to understand the implications of your misunderstanding.
And I am sure your friends even in the other sections of the forums will agree that long periods are in fact required.
I will let the talkorigins one go. I think everyone can see that they are a clearinghouse built by one sided ideologues.
The modern theory of natural selection is formulated in terms of genetic differences between individuals, resulting in differences in the frequency of alleles in a population over successive generations. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts are now understood to arise from random mutations.
tall73 said:Oh, I most certainly do. Now, lets examine it more closely.
What is it selecting from?
Natural selection eliminates those who can't adapt, and selects those who can. Selects from what? EXISTING variety. That variety must come from mutations.
The modern theory of natural selection is formulated in terms of genetic differences between individuals, resulting in differences in the frequency of alleles in a population over successive generations. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts are now understood to arise from random mutations.
tall73 said:NO no, you have it backwards. Mutation is the only method by which you can bring about complexity from an evolutionary model.
Since I edited it late I will put it here too :
from wikepedia's article on natural selection:
[/b]Natural selection only acts on genetic variation already present through mutation. The same with genetic drift etc. All change must happen on the gene level. From there selection and drift etc. act on the predominance of particular alleles in a given population.
Evolutionists must prove that there is the possibility of having that many positive mutations in the given time period. This has been particularly debated in the realm of human evolution due to the time allowed.
Every step from one cell, to two cells, to specialized cells, to integrated systems, to complex bio-chemical processes are all brought about through mutation. The probability of that many positive mutations , in this case positive leading to more complexity, seems remote since each time there is a mutation
a. it is usually negative or neutral (the idea that junk DNA is not junk is questioning the neutral idea)
b. it must be able to be passed on to young
c. it must actually be passed on through reproduction
d. it must then be passed on in sufficient numbers to establish a new species population that is selected for survival.
The rate at which mutations occur, are adopted, etc. is what is in question. In any case long periods are a definite must. You can't have complexity through mutations in a short time.
Donkeytron said:Ok I understand now what you're saying. I thought before you were totally unaware of the existence/processes of natural selection. Now that we've got that down...
I think we are both arguing against the wrong thing. What you are suggesting is that long periods of time are required for universal common descent? If so, that may or may not be the case. I think the point is moot anyway, since the age of the earth/fossils/etc. are pretty firm.
GraceInHim said:No they are not - scienctist are taking another look at what they have believed all this time - so this is not firm - only to those who do not want to take another look - there is more and more things being found and studied to bring this to light - so we cannot say without a doubt that the earth is billions or thousands of years old....
Donkeytron said:Just a helpful hint: You can be a creationist/IDer/whatever and publish scholarly articles.
I thought it was pretty clear that I meant they haven't published any articles ON ID or creationism in reputable journals.
Thus, the quote is question dead on. Additionally, I don't know what this paradigm nonsense is supposed to mean. You can keep pretending evolution isn't science, but it is. It works. Sorry to burst your cozy bubble of denial, but evolution isn't going away.
GraceInHim said:EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH from 9 scientist
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm#Evidence%20from%20Beneath
1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.pp. 29-30.
2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)p. 30.
Donkeytron said:Yes, the universe is really really old and the earth is also really old. This is true almost beyond a shadow of any doubt. There are way too many lines of independent evidence that corroborate eachother for the earth to be "young". Same goes for the universe (not as many lines of evidence though, at least not that I know of.) Unless you can think of a mechanism for why this would be (except the ol' god made it look old!) then you're out of luck.
Donkeytron said:Ah, google. It hasn't been too good to you in this thread to date. Dendrochronologic ages beyond 4000 years (the oldest living tree is around that old, it's in california) are calculated by lining up rings on living and fossilized trees. It works.
Your second point is nonsensical. The deteriorated atmosphere after the flood? Increaesd solar radiation? What calculations? Where are these negative mutations now? Was this written by a teenager?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?