Debate....

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:20 PM Smilin said this in Post #170

''That is, a proton and an electron will attract each other. The closer they are together, the stronger this attraction will be. Two protons (or two electrons) will repel each other. And again, the closer together they are, the stronger the repulsion. Now the nucleus of an atom is positively charged, while electrons are negatively charged. As a result, a nucleus will attract electrons. These electrons will swarm around the nucleus, and the result is an atom.

Now we haven't explained everything yet. The electric force explains how the electrons are bound to the nucleus of an atom. But we haven't said anything about what holds the nucleus together. The electric force can't account for this, and in fact, the electric force actually works against holding the nucleus together.

Remember, the nucleus contains neutrons and protons. The neutrons are electrically neutral, and so the electric force won't hold them in. Furthermore, the protons are all positively charged, and so they all repel each other. So if the electric force was the only force involved, you couldn't create a nucleus. You could try to push all those protons and neutrons together, but as soon as you let go, the protons would all shoot away from each other, and the neutrons would drift apart as well. There has to be some other force that holds protons and neutrons together.

Of course, since the electric force is constantly trying to drive the protons apart, the force that holds them all in must be stronger than the electric force. And keep in mind, the electric force gets stronger as charged particles get closer together, and the protons in a nucleus are very close together. As a result, the force that holds protons and neutrons together must be very strong. Well, in a brilliant stroke of imagination, physicists have named this force "the strong force."

The strong force is a force which attracts protons to protons, neutrons to neutrons''




FOC:
In case you didnt understand, the point was ''terms'' are for communication and DO NOT dictate reality.
Get it??

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 01:53 PM lucaspa said this in Post #180



Nope. Didn't miss that at all. But you missed that I predicted your exact response: " Now, you can retreat and say they were still "flies" but flies are a <B>huge</B>&nbsp;order with characteristics as widely divergent as rabbits and humans."

And you did exactly that.&nbsp; Do you realize that the new "flies" differed from the original in their DNA by 3%?&nbsp; That's twice as much difference as between chimps and humans.

What we have is observed evolution producing more difference in DNA than that between chimps and humans, which you call different "kinds".

So much for your barrier past which evolution can't go!

They are STILL flies. They will always BE flies. They cant help but to be anything BUT flies.
Who cares about differing DNA, THEY ARE STILL FLIES

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:51 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #133


This is RICH !!!

They dont ''CHANGE THEIR STORY'',
they ''ADJUST THEIR THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES''

Well, thanks for making that a little more clear (?)

It was clear.&nbsp; JohnR7 made a misstatement about the relationship of Darwin's work and neo-Darwinism.&nbsp; John maintains that neo-Darwinism replaced Darwinism because it was falsified.&nbsp; That is completely untrue.

Neo-Darwinism, or the Modern Synthesis, arose because it was realized that Mendelian genetics supported Darwinism and that it was possible to quantify&nbsp;Darwinism and describe it mathematically.

And yes, scientists throw out theories that are falsified.&nbsp; That's what happened to creationism, after all.

FoC, I've often noted that in discussions people who don't have any leg to stand on resort to insults and ridicule.&nbsp; You are following that pattern.

It is well known that theories must conform to facts in science. If the facts don't support the theory, then either 1) the theory must be discarded or 2) the theory must be modified to accord with the facts.

Even creationism does this.&nbsp; Creationism started out with no speciation at all.&nbsp; In fact, species could not change at all.&nbsp; They were immutable.&nbsp; Go back to AiG and ICR writings of 1980 and you will see this. Then, since the evidence was overwhelming, "microevolution" was accepted. Change in populations, but no change in species.&nbsp; This is your current position.&nbsp; Some creationists, like AiG and ICR,&nbsp;have gone further and now say speciation can take place, but no change in "kinds".&nbsp; Craetionists even modify the Bible. You did this when you said "God created kinds with the ability to vary".&nbsp; There's no Scripture to do this.&nbsp; You made that up in order to change your story to fit the facts.

So, before you ridicule Lady Shea, you had better be careful of your own glass house.

 

[Smilin]

FOC,

reference for your 'strong force'????

 

[Smilin]

Today at 02:03 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #182



They are STILL flies. They will always BE flies. They cant help but to be anything BUT flies.
Who cares about differing DNA, THEY ARE STILL FLIES

Coyotes are often mistaken for wild dogs.
Bobcats are often mistaken for wild cats.

Yet, they are each different species.

If you look at a Brahma bull, I doubt you'd still refer to it as it's genetic ancestor.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:03 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #182



They are STILL flies. They will always BE flies. They cant help but to be anything BUT flies.
Who cares about differing DNA, THEY ARE STILL FLIES

Their descendents won't always be flies.&nbsp; Just as the wheat-rye hybrids are no longer wheat or rye, but a new genus triticosecale.&nbsp; &nbsp; Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979.

We care about different DNA because DNA is what tells the organism what characteristics it has, and therefore what we are going to name it. We name organisms based on characteristics.&nbsp; Rabbits are mammals with long ears, two prominent front teeth, strong hind legs, etc.&nbsp; When the DNA changes, the characteristics change.&nbsp; After several speciation events where changes accumulate, you end up with an animal with short ears, no prominent incisors, front and hind legs the same, etc, and you no longer call it a rabbit.&nbsp; You have to have a different name because the characteristics are different.

So, when dinosaurs, thru multiple speciation events, acquired feathers, hollow bones, flight muscles, lost their teeth, lost their tail, etc. we could no longer call them dinosaurs, so we call them birds.

Kilias et al's study only went thru one speciation event.&nbsp; Therefore they didn't change genus, although they did accumulate more genetic difference than between humans and chimps.

The wheat-rye hybrids went thru several speciations and now have a new name -- triticosecale -- and are not wheat or rye anymore.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 01:55 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #181 Of course, since the electric force is constantly trying to drive the protons apart, the force that holds them all in must be stronger than the electric force. And keep in mind, the electric force gets stronger as charged particles get closer together, and the protons in a nucleus are very close together. As a result, the force that holds protons and neutrons together must be very strong. Well, in a brilliant stroke of imagination, physicists have named this force "the strong force."

The strong force is a force which attracts protons to protons, neutrons to neutrons''

Source for this?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:55 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #181

FOC:
In case you didnt understand, the point was ''terms'' are for communication and DO NOT dictate reality.

Which is why I posted the reality of phylogenetic studies.&nbsp; But you ignored that reality in order to hide behind semantics, didn't you?

However, terms reflect reality. In this case, the reason there is no term for the "barrier" is because the barrier doesn't exist.&nbsp; No sense having a term for something non-existent, is there?

 

[Smilin]

Today at 01:55 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #181



''That is, a proton and an electron will attract each other. The closer they are together, the stronger this attraction will be. Two protons (or two electrons) will repel each other. And again, the closer together they are, the stronger the repulsion. Now the nucleus of an atom is positively charged, while electrons are negatively charged. As a result, a nucleus will attract electrons. These electrons will swarm around the nucleus, and the result is an atom.

Now we haven't explained everything yet. The electric force explains how the electrons are bound to the nucleus of an atom. But we haven't said anything about what holds the nucleus together. The electric force can't account for this, and in fact, the electric force actually works against holding the nucleus together.

Remember, the nucleus contains neutrons and protons. The neutrons are electrically neutral, and so the electric force won't hold them in. Furthermore, the protons are all positively charged, and so they all repel each other. So if the electric force was the only force involved, you couldn't create a nucleus. You could try to push all those protons and neutrons together, but as soon as you let go, the protons would all shoot away from each other, and the neutrons would drift apart as well. There has to be some other force that holds protons and neutrons together.

Of course, since the electric force is constantly trying to drive the protons apart, the force that holds them all in must be stronger than the electric force. And keep in mind, the electric force gets stronger as charged particles get closer together, and the protons in a nucleus are very close together. As a result, the force that holds protons and neutrons together must be very strong. Well, in a brilliant stroke of imagination, physicists have named this force "the strong force."

The strong force is a force which attracts protons to protons, neutrons to neutrons''




FOC:
In case you didnt understand, the point was ''terms'' are for communication and DO NOT dictate reality.
Get it??

Now I know why you confused me. For some decades the old simple description of the strong-force has been superceeded by the more modern quantum-chromodynamics, which involved the exotically named quarks and gluons. FOC, you're behind the times.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:14 PM Smilin said this in Post #166

Domesticated animals were created? Please elaborate.

Where did 'stone age men' come from? You mentioned them but not their origin.

Let's get one thing clear here. Genesis chapter one says God created the Heavens, the Earth and everything in it. Science today spends a lot of time in Genesis chapter one. There is nothing wrong with that.

But as a Christian, we don't really become involved tell we get to Genesis Chapter two, when Adam and Eve were created. It just so happens, that when God created Adam and Eve, He also created cultavated flowers and domesticated animals. It was all pretty much a part of the same package.

Adam was a farmer, so whatever dogs he had, would not have been hunting dogs, they would have been more along the line of a shephard type dog. All the animals Adam and Eve had were animals of the field. The sort of animals you would expect to find on a farm. God created Adam first, then He created the animals and brought them to Adam for him to see. Then the very last that God created was Eve. She was kinda like the grand finale.

As far as I am concerned. Stone age man was created back in Chapter one. But if you go by the Gap theory, then all of that pretty much took place before the Bible ever really begins. Or the other theory is that Adam actually decended from the Stone age man and God breathed a Special breath of life into Adam.

The problem with chapter one is that there are lots of theorys. It is not untell you get to chapter two, that things start to become less theory and begins to be what we know to be true. Because recorded history began with Civilized man, so we have a lot of information outside of just the Bible.

What took place before Adam and Eve is not nearly as important as what took place once Adam and Eve were formed. Because that is the place that God is in the process of restoring the earth to. Back to the Garden of Eden, before the fall. Only the whole earth will be as the Garden of Eden.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:09 PM lucaspa said this in Post #165
Creationism is falsified. Again.

Only between your ears is it falsified, not out in the real world.

If there is a creation, then there&nbsp;had to be&nbsp;a creator. Otherwise none of us would exist and&nbsp;for none of us to exist would be&nbsp;philosophy not theology. Sense this is a theology board, then it is assumed that we do exist.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 02:03 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #182

They are STILL flies. They will always BE flies. They cant help but to be anything BUT flies.
Who cares about differing DNA, THEY ARE STILL FLIES

What prevents further diversification into something we would no longer call a "fly"?

Until you can answer this basic question, your argument is meaningless.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 02:18 PM Smilin said this in Post #189



Now I know why you confused me. For some decades the old simple description of the strong-force has been superceeded by the more modern quantum-chromodynamics, which involved the exotically named quarks and gluons. FOC, you're behind the times.

behind the times?

I believe I copied that from a paper from 1999 (need to find the site again)
Even if that is the case, do they ''understand'' or not?

The can give all the terms for it they want, but if it defies some law of theirs, they really need to admit they havent figured it out completely yet (as creation).


Not that it is even the point.

The point was that they label things whether or not they understand them or not then try to pass it off as knowledge and sometimes fact.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 02:29 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #192



What prevents further diversification into something we would no longer call a "fly"?

Until you can answer this basic question, your argument is meaningless.

Another rich one.
I am NOT the one trying to push theory.

Sorry Pete, the burden of proof is on you and your men in white.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:04 PM lucaspa said this in Post #183
And yes, scientists throw out theories that are falsified.&nbsp; That's what happened to creationism, after all.&nbsp;

First of all, we are not even all that interested in Creation"ism". We know that God created the Heaven and the Earth and that is all we need to know.

We also know that God created Adam &amp; Eve and all that went along with them. But science does not need to be involved with Adam and Eve as a issue of Creation. If Science wants to say Adam and Eve evolved, they are free to do as they please. But the fact is, Adam and Eve are very historical. What we have in the Bible, from Chapter two on, is historical. There is lots of written history outside of the Bible, to back it all up.

 

[Arikay]

So follower, is this really a grudge against people who you think are wrongfully saying they are smarter than you?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:21 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #125
Evolution is just&nbsp;a word in the dictionary that has been hijacked by a bunch of post darwin zealots. Darwin's theory of evolution was proven to be wrong, so now we live in an age of NeoDarwinism, and that&nbsp;also will be proven to be wrong. Or at best very inaccurate. There is far to many contradictions within their own ranks. Evolutionists can not even agree amoung themselves as to what evolutionary theory is.

Tsk, tsk. False witness again.&nbsp; And here I thought you were getting better.&nbsp; Defiinitions change. In Darwin's time "evolution" referred to what we today call embryological development.&nbsp; They talked about the "transmutation" of species.&nbsp; It wasn't until the last page of Origin that Darwin used "evolved" to describe the transformation of one species to another.

NeoDarwinism was the realization that Mendelian genetics fit perfectly with Darwinism and natural selection.&nbsp; The separateness of alleles and genes provided exactly the genetic mechanism that Darwinism needed to work.

As to agreement:
"We have come a long way since Darwin, but we still have a way to go before we can find ourselves in total agreement on all details of how the evolutionary process works. Indeed, realist that I am, I know that day will never come.

We do all agree that life has evolved.&nbsp; We do all agree that the reason why organisms tend to fit their environments so well is that their anatomies, physiologies, and behaviors have been shaped by natural selection, working on local populations living resource-limited lives within the confines of local ecosystems.&nbsp; And we are coming ever closer&nbsp; to agreeing that whatever phenomena of stability and genetic change take place within local populations, gaps between species arise primordially through speciation." Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, pg 89

The details of evolutionary theory are argued: is most speciation allopatric or sympatric?&nbsp; How much of selection is natural selection and how much sexual selection?&nbsp; Does sexual selection select traits beneficial to survival?

But none of these questions affects the reality of descent with modification or natural selection.&nbsp;

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 02:33 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #194

Another rich one.
I am NOT the one trying to push theory.

Yes, you are. You are making a claim that a natural barrier must exist, limiting diversification. Therefore, you must present evidence for it.

Sorry Pete, the burden of proof is on you and your men in white.

As lucaspa showed earlier, scientists have looked and haven't found one. Therefore, until one demonstrates evidence of such a barrier, I maintain that no such barrier exists.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:33 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #194



Another rich one.
I am NOT the one trying to push theory.

Sorry Pete, the burden of proof is on you and your men in white.

Ah, the old shifting the burden of proof fallacy.&nbsp; FoC, in any discussion, all claims share the same burden of proof.&nbsp; You have claimed a barrier.&nbsp; What is your evidence for one?

Pete and I, OTOH, say there is no barrier. We have offered phylogenetic analysis, speciation and genetic change beyond what is seen in the two most important "kinds" to creationists (chimps and humans), and multiple speciations in plants to the point that a&nbsp;new name had to be used to describe the new organisms.

And yes, you are pushing theory.&nbsp; You are pushing the theory of creationism.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 02:22 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #190


Let's get one thing clear here. Genesis chapter one says God created the Heavens, the Earth and everything in it. Science today spends a lot of time in Genesis chapter one. There is nothing wrong with that.

All the scientists I know don't. But you treat a religious text as a science text. That's why you make that assumption. An assumption without merit.

Today at 02:22 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #190
But as a Christian, we don't really become involved tell we get to Genesis Chapter two, when Adam and Eve were created. It just so happens, that when God created Adam and Eve, He also created cultavated flowers and domesticated animals. It was all pretty much a part of the same package

You totally disregarded the information I gave you on cattle. I won't waste my time discussing the descendants of cats, dogs or any other 'domesticated' animal. I guess God (not man) created corn and strawberries too huh?

Today at 02:22 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #190
Adam was a farmer, so whatever dogs he had, would not have been hunting dogs, they would have been more along the line of a shephard type dog. All the animals Adam and Eve had were animals of the field. The sort of animals you would expect to find on a farm. God created Adam first, then He created the animals and brought them to Adam for him to see. Then the very last that God created was Eve. She was kinda like the grand finale.

Today at 02:22 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #190

/me bookmarking this poste... AAAHHH WE AGREE FOR ONCE!
yep, the female is the grand finale IMO as well.

however,
1. Adam was a farmer? I was under the impression he just lay around all day eating from the tree of life. Oh, you meant after 'the fall'. Errr.. what did he grow?

2. Sheperd type dogs came before hunting dogs? You're still confusing me. What dogs came when? Are you insenuating dogs are merely a 'domesticated' species?

Today at 02:22 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #190
As far as I am concerned. Stone age man was created back in Chapter one. But if you go by the Gap theory, then all of that pretty much took place before the Bible ever really begins. Or the other theory is that Adam actually decended from the Stone age man and God breathed a Special breath of life into Adam.

The problem with chapter one is that there are lots of theorys. It is not untell you get to chapter two, that things start to become less theory and begins to be what we know to be true. Because recorded history began with Civilized man, so we have a lot of information outside of just the Bible.?

Yes, we have a lot of information which isn't recorded history. You left out a third option,which you probably won't dare consider): Genesis isn't accurate. Whether you want to consider it or not, there is that option.

Today at 02:22 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #190

What took place before Adam and Eve is not nearly as important as what took place once Adam and Eve were formed. Because that is the place that God is in the process of restoring the earth to. Back to the Garden of Eden, before the fall. Only the whole earth will be as the Garden of Eden.

Maybe you're not curious enough for it to be important, however, the history, cultures, religions, migration, etc, etc, of mankind is important to many of us. Whether Adam or Eve actually existed is also important.