Do non-experts really appreciate the work and knowledge of experts?

[Baggins]

I find your comments about Piltdown fascinating. Especially the part about a lot riding on the reputations of the people who discovered it.

That sounds a WHOLE lot like, 'it is okay they lied, they were only protecting themselves.'

Piltdown man was a fraud perpetrated on the scientific community, by an hoaxer, that was discovered by the scientific community. It was declared dubious soon afterwards, and was finally definitively proved to a be a fake some 40 years later.

How this can be construed as evidence against evolution is beyond me.

It proves that people will try to hoax the scientific community, it also proves that they will be found out; as that Korean cloning expert found out recently.

It is not easy to hoax scientists and with the advancements in science and technology it is becoming more difficult by the day.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Who's the judge of what undeserved suffering is? How about the worthiness of someone's salvation? Not you or I, but God. He's given us the ground rules and told us the requirements, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we don't follow them.

And the only rule is "believe" -without evidence, and against all reason. Despite persecution, you must assume that wise men are fools and that all who disbelieve are damned liars. So anyone too logical to buy that is going to be damned. It doesn't matter what a rotten ******* you were in life, accept Christ and live forever. And it doesn't matter how wonderful you were to everyone who knew of you, you're going to Hell if you're not gullible enough to believe something that doesn't make sense on any level and which contradicts itself on every level.

This is speaking of physical death, not the spiritual life I was referring to.

Then the wages of sin are exactly the same as the wages of forgiveness reborn in Christ. Because you and I are both going to die in the body. And your Bible promises that you will continue after that only if you believe in him. I'll just stay dead, and therefore cannot go to Hell to be tortured by your all forgiving god of love.

There are many things that can have a practical application in the real world which have no scientific background whatsoever.

Name one.

Prayer.

No sir. Prayer is no more reliable than talking to yourself -as if speaking to an imaginary friend. In fact, its exactly like that!

Not knowing the figures off-hand, let's make some predictions to examine. I would say that better than 98% of the parents who's children were abducted by strangers prayed to have those children returned alive and unharmed. But I would bet that a miserable minority of them ever get their wish. Further, I would be willing to bet that the majority of these children had parents who prayed for them never to be abducted in the first place, and yet they still were anyway, and most were molested and murdered as a result which also were against their parent's prayers.

If God has this master plan, is he going to change it because you ask him to? If something terrible befalls you, would he wait to stop it until you asked him nicely? Prayer has no practical application in the real world because it doesn't get anywhere near reliable results.

What use would studying the finer points of evolution provide if I didn't understand or comprehend them?

Well, you'd be able to fix that at least.

If there is value in the knowledge it will be made known without a tremendous amount of in-depth study. Once known this then would prompt a desire for more. Prejudging something states one made a judgment on a topic that was without sufficient evidence or knowledge of said topic. That begs the question as to what is sufficient? If it means years of study in the related sciences, well then yes you're right, I've prejudged evolution.

I would say only the basics are required. And creationists habitually never understand those. For example, biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphology, physiology, or developmental biology, -which (when compiled over successive generations) can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Now, this is the definition of evolution, and the fact which the theory means to explain. Do you deny that this is a fact? Do you deny that the theory explains it? If yes in either case, then why? And we can start from there.

 

[TheInstant]

You I agree with.

However, the outright hatred that is expressed toward Creationists is not coming from evolution-supporting-Christians is it?

Is outright hatred towards Creationists coming from anyone? Just because someone disagrees with you, even if they seem a bit insulting when they do it, I don't think it's right to conclude that they hate you because of your beliefs.

 

[TheInstant]

Well, this is intersting.

TexasSky, do you think that you could edit the part of your post that follows this quote so that your responses are not included in a quote by Loudmouth (I assume those are your responses)? The way it is now it is difficult to respond to your post point-by-point, as I would like to do.

It looks like all you have to do is add a "]" at the end of "[/quote" right there close to the beginning.

EDIT: Nevermind, I just copied it over to Word and responded to it there.

 

[vossler]

And the only rule is "believe" -without evidence, and against all reason.

There's plenty of evidence for those who seek it.

Despite persecution, you must assume that wise men are fools and that all who disbelieve are damned liars. So anyone to logical to buy that is going to be damned. It doesn't matter what a rotten ******* you were in life, accept Christ and live forever. And it doesn't matter who wonderful you were to everyone who knew of you, you're going to Hell if you're not gullible enough to believe -something that doesn't make sense on any level and which contradicts itself on every level.

No one is all bad, just like no one is all good. All have sinned and fallen short, yet God still loves us. Pretty amazing! He's certainly not like us.

Then the wages of sin are exactly the same as the wages of forgiveness reborn in Christ. Because you and I are both going to die in the body. And your Bible promises that you will continue after that only if you believe in him. I'll just stay dead, and therefore cannot go to Hell to be tortured by your all forgiving god of love.

You too will continue on, just not where you'd prefer to.

[No sir. Prayer is no more reliable than talking to yourself -as if speaking to an imaginary friend. In fact, its exactly like that!

There are countless thousands of people who would disagree with you. I'm one of them.

Not knowing the figures off-hand, let's make some predictions to examine. I would say that better than 98% of the parents who's children were abducted by strangers prayed to have those children returned alive and unharmed. But I would bet that a miserable minority of them ever get their wish. Further, I would be willing to bet that the majority of these children had parents who prayed for them never to be abducted in the first place, and yet they still were anyway, and most were molested and murdered as a result which also were against their parent's prayers.

If you are God's child, He will comfort you in your time of need. Ask some of the mothers and fathers of some of the kids you mentioned above, they will all tell you that God answered their prayers.

If God has this master plan, is he going to change it because you ask him to? If something terrible befalls you, would he wait to stop it until you asked him nicely? Prayer has no practical application in the real world because it doesn't get anywhere near reliable results.

Prayer has far more reliable results than anything else you could ever hold up to it.

I would say only the basics are required. And creationists habitually never understand those. For example, biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphology, physiology, or developmental biology,

Up to here I'm with you!

which (when compiled over successive generations) can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

The word can is interesting, it leaves the door open for a lot changes. I can't put my arms around those changes because it is only when someone such as yourself tells me this that I could even entertain the idea of this leading to descendant branches. There is nothing other than you and your experiments that could lead one to believe this. For example, there are no transitional forms between an ape and man.

So to answer your question directly I don't know if I can, but here it goes. I believe this to be the theory that evolution is attempting to sustain but I don't believe it to be a fact, but it explains your position.

I would prefer we come at this from the way I presented my objections in post #171. Do you feel that you can adequately address those two points, if so I think we can accomplish something.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I find your comments about Piltdown fascinating. Especially the part about a lot riding on the reputations of the people who discovered it.

That sounds a WHOLE lot like, 'it is okay they lied, they were only protecting themselves.'

No, you misconstrued what I said. I never suggested it was okay they lied. What I said was that part of what convinced other scientists that this was a legit discovery was the reputations of the discoverers. This is because the fossils (at least, Piltdown 2) didn't get a lot of public scrutiny. They had to go with the reputation and purported expertise of the discoverers.

However, this doesn't mean there was unilateral support. The Piltdown fossils didn't fit with what else was known about human evolution. This is why it was eventually scrutinzed more heavily and the hoax was uncovered. And it's important to note that this was no simple fraud. A lot of work had clearly gone into perpetuating the fraud and it took a fair amount of work to uncover it. But ulimately, it was uncovered.

Unfortunately, most creationists are unfamiliar with the story of Piltdown. There seems to be this general perception that Piltdown was unilaterally supported and that it was this spectacularly major find on which the pillar of human evolution rested for 40 years. This is simply not the case at all.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That's a typo. It should have read 1938.
The information came from a PBS site by the way.

Do you have a link?

 

[Edx]

Prayer has far more reliable results than anything else you could ever hold up to it.

Then why bother with medical science at all?

 

[LadyNRA]

I've noticed that in some cases (particularly with creationists, but in other cases as well) non-experts seem to view their own knowledge as on par or even trumping experts in a certain field. For example, I've worked as a computer tech in the past and it's always amazed me the certain people that will happily diagnose or suggest fixes for a PC issue when they clearly don't have a clue.

I can only imagine how scientists must feel when confronted by obviously un-educated and un-trained creationists. It makes me wonder if people really appreciate the work that goes into those disciplines

I took this paleontology-related course I took on dinosaurs last semester. During the course the instructor showed various videos of scientists and grad students doing real work related to dinosaur fossils. I was taken aback by the detail of the work that was involved in the study of those fossils (particularly anatomical reconstructions) and also the background knowledge required to do that work.

But then I come here and I see some creationists making conclusions about fossils based on low-res diagrams or photos grabbed off a web site... Are you kidding me? There is no way I'm going to take some person's ad-hoc opinion seriously over people working in that field.

Now this isn't to say that scientists are infallible. They're not. But if look into the depth of knowledge and work involved in paleontological research, it makes you appreciate things a lot more when it comes to fossils.

I've heard this argument before and essentially you are right that people should be better informed but I was on a debate list for this subject and every time someone would take a highly credentialed creation scientist's article and put it up there, the evolutionists would automatically scream and holler that because it was written by a creationist it couldn't possibly be scientific or accurate. And I even asked "if you take two opposing views written by two scientists with exactly the same formal education, are you saying that only the evolutionist's view would be the correct one?" And guess what, most of those folks (largely atheists) would say "Yes, because the creationist doesn't have a brain in his head no matter what his degree says."

And I lost count of the times someone on that list told me to take courses or read a bunch of books by evolutionists (as if the material taught was more valid) and I'd understand how right they were. I'm thinking...wait a minute, why is their information source less biased than mine? And why do they think I have all the time in the world to research this way. I look to my sources (creation scientists with legitimate degrees from secular universities) to reduce the amount of effort I have to put into my own researching.

And so just because you say, ask a scientist, that doesn't mean you will get the 'correct' answer either. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Caphi]

I've heard this argument before and essentially you are right that people should be better informed but I was on a debate list for this subject and every time someone would take a highly credentialed creation scientist's article and put it up there, the evolutionists would automatically scream and holler that because it was written by a creationist it couldn't possibly be scientific or accurate. And I even asked "if you take two opposing views written by two scientists with exactly the same formal education, are you saying that only the evolutionist's view would be the correct one?" And guess what, most of those folks (largely atheists) would say "Yes, because the creationist doesn't have a brain in his head no matter what his degree says."

And I lost count of the times someone on that list told me to take courses or read a bunch of books by evolutionists (as if the material taught was more valid) and I'd understand how right they were. I'm thinking...wait a minute, why is their information source less biased than mine? And why do they think I have all the time in the world to research this way. I look to my sources (creation scientists with legitimate degrees from secular universities) to reduce the amount of effort I have to put into my own researching.

And so just because you say, ask a scientist, that doesn't mean you will get the 'correct' answer either. That's all I'm saying.

Which "highly credentialed" article are we talking about? There are some particular people who are infamous across forums, the obvious one springing to mind being Hovind, of course. Perhaps you posted an article or a name which was already seen. I don't know, that's why I asked.

As for the second bit, the one about you not having time - well, if you can't bother educating yourself on the subject of the debate, why would you be in the debate? You may well say "I don't have time to read this stuff," but you can't use that as a way of saying that your side is superior. At best, you can use it only as a way of quietly excusing yourself from the discussion on grounds that you are not sufficiently prepared.

Also: after all, you have time to educate yourself on YOUR side, don't you? You've said that. Being already educated on your native arguments, you might spare time reading the other sides', if only in a spirit of tactical preparation. I haven't heard that Creationist articles are easier to track down or read than any other type, whether "evolutionist," Hindu, Scientologist, whatever. One way or another, that's no excuse.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I've heard this argument before and essentially you are right that people should be better informed but I was on a debate list for this subject and every time someone would take a highly credentialed creation scientist's article and put it up there, the evolutionists would automatically scream and holler that because it was written by a creationist it couldn't possibly be scientific or accurate. And I even asked "if you take two opposing views written by two scientists with exactly the same formal education, are you saying that only the evolutionist's view would be the correct one?" And guess what, most of those folks (largely atheists) would say "Yes, because the creationist doesn't have a brain in his head no matter what his degree says."

And I lost count of the times someone on that list told me to take courses or read a bunch of books by evolutionists (as if the material taught was more valid) and I'd understand how right they were. I'm thinking...wait a minute, why is their information source less biased than mine? And why do they think I have all the time in the world to research this way. I look to my sources (creation scientists with legitimate degrees from secular universities) to reduce the amount of effort I have to put into my own researching.

And so just because you say, ask a scientist, that doesn't mean you will get the 'correct' answer either. That's all I'm saying.

The thing about creationists and creationism, however, is that it's primarily about pushing religious beliefs. And creationists aren't exactly 0shy about this, either. That right there accounts for a lot of the backlash.

On top of that, you have the fact that the debate about creationism has been largely settled scientifically speaking. There is this public perception that there is this big debate going on, when in fact scientists are pretty much unified on the issue. They don't want to have to deal with creationism any more because they view it as a dead issue. It's only a very vocal minority with transparent religious not scientific motivation who are still kicking up a fuss. And as a result, the debate that exists today is almost purely political. It's not about the science at all.

 

[random_guy]

Im sure I've missed many of TexasSky's post, but are you telling me she hasnt backed up this story yet?

Not at all. It seems more and more likely that the person is made up, or the story was completely twisted. However, it's on par with the rest the posting history.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've heard this argument before and essentially you are right that people should be better informed but I was on a debate list for this subject and every time someone would take a highly credentialed creation scientist's article and put it up there, the evolutionists would automatically scream and holler that because it was written by a creationist it couldn't possibly be scientific or accurate.

Given the track record of creation "scientists" this is not an unwarranted accusation. Take the RATE group for example. They dated rocks contaminated by xenoliths and tried to pass it off as a legitimate use of dating techniques. I could go right down the list of creationist articles that either fabricate or ignore evidence, misquote scientists, and create strawman theories of evolution. Creation scientists are more than disregarded. Their dishonesty is revealed on a constant basis.

And I even asked "if you take two opposing views written by two scientists with exactly the same formal education, are you saying that only the evolutionist's view would be the correct one?" And guess what, most of those folks (largely atheists) would say "Yes, because the creationist doesn't have a brain in his head no matter what his degree says."

What would you say to a well credentialed scientist that claimed the Earth was the center of the solar system? Would you take him seriously or start to think that he was a crackpot?

And I lost count of the times someone on that list told me to take courses or read a bunch of books by evolutionists (as if the material taught was more valid) and I'd understand how right they were. I'm thinking...wait a minute, why is their information source less biased than mine?

It's less biased because it does not ignore evidence. If you want to claim that evolution is false then you should at least understand the theory and the evidence that supports it.

And why do they think I have all the time in the world to research this way. I look to my sources (creation scientists with legitimate degrees from secular universities) to reduce the amount of effort I have to put into my own researching.

Your right, since those creationists don't do complete research either.

And so just because you say, ask a scientist, that doesn't mean you will get the 'correct' answer either. That's all I'm saying.

The ultimate judge is the evidence. If you hear a scientist claim that "there are no transitionals" then check the fossils that have been pulled from the geologic column. Find the definition for "transitional" in biology textbooks and see if the fossils match the definition. Science is about discovery, not about blindly accepting the opinions of others.

 

[Split Rock]

In 1660 Redi proves that maggots are not the result of spontaneous generation, but rather born from eggs the naked eye can't trace.

OK. What does this have to do with evolution?

In 1817 Cuvier's research in recent fossils of extinct creatures supports catastrophic extinction theories, including the great flood. He stresses that modern life is too complex to have evolved naturally. However, even though Cuvier believed his research disproved evolution, evolutionists use Cuvier's work to support their theory of evolution.

Cuvier did indeed reject evolution. Instead he favored "Catastrophism" where life on earth was created and destroyed over many cycles. Funny thing is that he understood that the geological record shows that life in the past was very different from today. The reason his work was cited by Darwin and his supporters was that he was an excellent comparative anatomist.

In 1860, Darwins view that man descended from ape is challeneged. Britains leading scientists and critics attack Dawin's theory. Thomas Huxley tries to defend Darwin, but Huxley also makes statements that even though his personal research supported the idea of inteligent design he adamantely refused to believe there was a supreme being, and therefore rejected any evidence that supported anything OTHER than evolution.

Huxley did a fine job of supporting evolution. Darwin did not mention human evolution until his later work, "Descent of Man" as you yourself indicate below.

In 1865 the scientific world is divided. Many prominent scientists still reject the entire theory of evolution, MOST still rejected natural selection, but some science classes (interesting enough these are at Christian universities), begin to teach that plants and animals drived from previous versions of plants and animals. (Note, this does NOT require species jumping, or primordial soup).

Are you saying species don't jump? What about Kangaroos??

In 1871 Hodge challenges Darwinism as a form of atheism. That same year, Darwin writes "The Descent of Man," in which he insists that survival of the fittest is how mankind came to exist.

Now, Darwin makes this claim.

In 1876 the theologians and scientists are still getting along, but the president of Cornell University wants to teach science without any reference to religion at all. He writes a pamphlet and then a book that ends up putting scientists and theologians at war with one another.

Name??

In 1895 Herbert Spencer challenges evolution based on social science. His intent was to show that social issues would have had a significant part to play in the evolution of mankind, and that natural selection was flawed. Interestingly enough, that results in the development of theories like Social Darwinism. The wealthy men of the times love the idea. The biggest supporters are John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Other people of the times are not so thrilled with it, as it appears to be justification for capitalism without conscious.

Spencer's arguments were based on a misapplication of a biological theory to justify an economic theory.

In 1896 Becquerel declares that Lord Kelvin was wrong, and that the earth is older than Kelvin stated.

That is because Kelvin knew nothing about radioactive decay.

In 1912 - Piltdown man shows up. Science delcares they've found the missing link. Darwinism is declared proven. And for 28 years they teach this crap as fact. In 1950 - - - they reveal that Piltdown man is a TOTAL FAKE.

Darwinism was never declared "proven." Most of the support for Piltdown Man was from British scientists who wanted their own "missing link" to compete with the finds coming out of Africa and Asia.

Interesting that this represents the only example of fraud in your little history story.

In 1913 George Price's "Fundamentals of Geology" suggest that all fossible-bearing rock on earth confirms the great flood.

He suggest it, but not much else.

In 1938 Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is seen as a Nazi idea. The public screams that teaching Darwinism is promoting Nazi views.

Which "public" screams? Darwin did nothing to promote "nazi views" .. According to evolutionary theory, we all come from ancestors in Africa.

In 1925 Dart produces Taungs "man-like ape" as evidence of evolution. Unfortunately, about 20 years later paleontologists say Dart is wrong. Dar said we were apes who hunted. Other evolutionists said we were ape scavengers. Anti-Evolutionists don't like either theory.

Dart was correct, however.

In 1940 - Neo-Darwinism is born because of genetics. Evolutionary synthesis becomes a foundation of biology. Rather than survival of the fittest, it is "natural selection through inherited change."

This makes no sense. "survival of the fittest" is a not-so accurate way of describing Natural Selection.

1945 - the fact that insects develop resistance to DDT leads people to think that evolution may be right.

I suppose you have a better explanation?

1953 - DNA is seen as a support for evolution.

OK

1951 - George Price's book is revisited. Morris and Whitcomb write a book based on Price's book. This is the birth of YEC.

Too bad Morris was an engineer and not a geologist, huh?

1970 - Creation Science spreads nationwide. Critics attack Morris's book on religous grounds, rather than scientific grounds.

Nonsense. It was attacked on both scientific and theological grounds.

1974 - Lucky is presented as evidence that our ancestors are small-brained apes that walked upright and that she is our oldest ancestor. Creationists object.

I suppose you mean "Lucy." Of course creationists "object." That's what they do when they feel their dogma is threatened.

1975 - Christians charge that Secular Humanism is a religion, and that federal funding should not be used to promote a religion. The courts agree it is a religion, but refuse to limit what it teaches.

Too bad evolution has nothing to do with "Human secularism."

1982 - A gallup poll shows that most Americans do not accept trans species evolution. 76% of the American public wanted creation theories taught in public schools.

I'm not sure I accept "trans-species" evolution either.. what is it?

By 1990 many Americans, 5% of Austrailians, and many people in New Zealand, Korea, Russian, Turkey and the Middle east accept young-earth. Muslims teach young earth.

Glad to hear that Christian Fundies see themselves in the same boat as Muslim Fundies. Good company there.

In 1991 - "Dawrinism on Trial" is written by Harvard Trained Berkeley professor, "Philip Johnson."

Too bad Johnson is a lawyer who knows nothing about biology.

In 1996 - Michael Behe writes Darwin's Black Box, which uses molecular biology as its support, but it is criticized heavily by biologists.

Yes it is.. for good reason.. his arguments all failed.

2001 Gallup Poll - 57% of Americans choose creationism over evolution as the answer to the origina of life, but they shun the label "Creationist" because it has been given a negative image.

They shun it because it has earned a negative image.

Only 37% of Americans believe in old earth.

I am not sure I buy this. Reference?

 

[TheInstant]

Disagree - Big Bang theory INCLUDES abiogensis as the explanation of for origin of life.

No, it doesn’t. The Big Bang theory deals with the origin of the universe, not the origin of life.

It is only in recent years, VERY recent years, the science community has tried to make this claim.

Can you back this up somehow?

As I stated in another thread, it so stunned me that I contacted a respected microbiologist who teaches evolution as part of biology and asked if the theory of evolution includes primodrial soup/big bang/etc. or not. His answer was that the theory of evolution itself DOES includ primordial soup, it is NOT however usually taught in classes that touch on evolution from a biology stand point. So you and others who say it is not part of the overall theory are wrong. You're splitting hairs too much.

What if I told you I just contacted the head of a major Creationist organization and he told me that creation scientists know evolution is true but they pretend not to in order to receive donations for creation research that never takes place? Would you believe me, or would you ask me to back it up? Your unnamed micro-biologist doesn’t hold any weight in this discussion because we have no idea if you’re telling the truth or if you made it up or misunderstood what he said or what.

No, it is more like asking my mechanic if he is familiar with the whole car or just the muffler?

This analogy does not work because the theory of evolution is not some grand unifying theory of naturalistic origins, it deals with biological evolution and that is all.

I understand that you are trying to claim a subdivision of evolution is all of evolutionary theory and that you have actually admitted otherwise in a very round about way.

Maybe you should read what he wrote again. He in no way admitted otherwise.

No, it wasn't explained. It was stated.

Big Bang was taught as the explanation for the origin of life for decades, with the basic premise being that the chemical reactions following the cosmic explosion resulted in primordial soup and then the infamous soup to cell to fish to reptile to bird to mammal to man theories. (Or did I reverse some of those? Its been a while since I paid attention to that little train.)

The Big Bang deals only with the expansion of the universe, or the “cosmic explosion” as you described it. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of the first life, and evolution deals with the divergence of species. Can you provide something to support what you’ve said above? Something like, for example, a scientific paper about the Big Bang that discusses the formation of life?

Now, maybe recently they've decided that to avoid issues they'll split hairs and try to separate that, but I'm going to be a stickler. If you want to talk origin of species with me, we're going to get to your "Adam," and I'm going to ask, "Okay, where did HE come from." And if you tell me "He came from an ape," I'll ask, "Where did the ape come from," and if you we work all the back to "basic DNA," I'm going to ask "where did THAT come from.." and eventually you're going to start talking amino acids and I'm going to go, "AHA!"

Why? As he already stated, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss these different theories for the purposes of this debate. That does not make them the same scientific theory. Each of them can still stand on their own merits. If it was found, for example, that the first life on earth was brought here by aliens, it would not affect evolution. If it was found that the Big Bang (origin of the universe) was no longer a viable theory, this would not affect abiogenesis (the formation of the first life on earth). If the falsification of one of these aspects does not affect the others, how could you consider them to be a part of the same theory?

You believe there is no “better” explanation, Young Earthers think there is. They want a chance to present that view to you.

And that chance is available to them.

I'm going to challenge that.

See, I took biology, and chemistry, and physics. I read the text books. I made A's on the tests. I read the questions raised by creationists, I debunked some of their statements, but I AlSO debunked some of the claims made by the evolutionists.

Since I did study evolution at a college level, I think it is fair to say I gave them a fair chance to convince me.

Did you ever study the data offered by the Young_earth folk? When they talk about the helium ratios, did you ever go back and find out if the rate of loss is the same as the rate of production?

I don't know anything about AiG.

I do know that the statement you just made is false in as far as the creation scientists that I have read. They have included these mechanisms in their research, and the data still shows that the loss rate does NOT account for the amount of helium that should be in our atmosphere if we have been in this process for 4.6 billion years.

I haven’t heard of this aspect of the helium argument, but it sounds interesting. Maybe you could start a thread about it?

Now that's a fun question. Are you suggesting that every living creature on earth is actually one species?

Or are you just condoning that biology has not yet defined the word species?

If you mean there is one - then science would be wrong about the number of currently identified species.

I'll grant your statement about logical fallacies. In fact I think you just created one you didn't intend to create.

If creationists have not yet proven there are separate species, then neither have biologists, and yet, biologists claim there are.

I think by “separate species” he meant separately created species, or the creationist belief that all species do not share a common ancestor.

BUT having said that.

How do "Sterile offspring" that "lack interbreeding" produce new life forms?

They don’t. This is what makes large-scale evolution possible. If two populations can no longer interbreed, the accumulated changes within the populations can do nothing but grow larger over time.

Also, the page you cited says that they technically one of their examples is the SAME SPECIES. I asked about marco evolution - evolution from one species to another.

One of their examples. Did you look at the rest?

And even when it shows a statement as support for macro evolution (which is hardly the scale required to explain the current population of the earth) it says, "While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.")

Inability to mate and unwillingness to mate would both have the same effect on populations: the two populations no longer produce offspring with each other.

So - it brings us all back to the age of creationist vs evolutionists questions - still unanswered.

You've shown a fish mixed with a fish gives you a new fish.
I asked you to mix a horse with a pig and get a human.

Why? Evolution does not suggest that this should be possible.

Creationists have NEVER objected to the idea that a fish with a fish, even a different version of fish, can produce a fish.

We will ALWAYS disagree with the concept that a fish out of water became a man.

Well, the way you’ve described it is a gross oversimplification, but the way you’ve phrased it is interesting. Are you saying that no amount of evidence will change your mind?

 

[Loudmouth]

Disagree - Big Bang theory INCLUDES abiogensis as the explanation of for origin of life.

No it doesn't, and it never has. The Big Bang theory covers the expansion of spacetime from a singularity.

As I stated in another thread, it so stunned me that I contacted a respected microbiologist who teaches evolution as part of biology and asked if the theory of evolution includes primodrial soup/big bang/etc. or not. His answer was that the theory of evolution itself DOES includ primordial soup, it is NOT however usually taught in classes that touch on evolution from a biology stand point. So you and others who say it is not part of the overall theory are wrong. You're splitting hairs too much.

Give us the name of this microbiologist so we can all be stunned.

No, it is more like asking my mechanic if he is familiar with the whole car or just the muffler?

Actually, it is like asking a mechanic if he is familiar with how the iron in the car was created in supernovae and suns. The mechanic does not need to understand where the iron came from in order to fix the car. In the same way, the theory of evolution does not care where the first life came from, it is only concerned with how that life changed over time.

I understand that you are trying to claim a subdivision of evolution is all of evolutionary theory and that you have actually admitted otherwise in a very round about way.

I am telling you as a degreed scientist that this is how it is defined.

Big Bang was taught as the explanation for the origin of life for decades, with the basic premise being that the chemical reactions following the cosmic explosion resulted in primordial soup and then the infamous soup to cell to fish to reptile to bird to mammal to man theories. (Or did I reverse some of those? Its been a while since I paid attention to that little train.)

Cosmic expansion = Big Bang

Origin of Life = Abiogenesis

First life to bacteria to complex eukaryotes fish to amphibians to reptile to mammal to primate to man = Evolution

Three different categoreis, three different theories.

Now, maybe recently they've decided that to avoid issues they'll split hairs and try to separate that, but I'm going to be a stickler.

No one is avoiding it. However, biologists are not concerned with the Big Bang and only curiously concerned with abiogenesis. Chemists are not concerned with evolution but are concerned with abiogenesis and curiously concerned with the Big Bang. Astronomists and physicists are knee deep in to the Big Bang, but they don't give a hoot about abiogenesis or evolution. Because there are very few people with degrees in biology, chemistry, and physics it will be hard to find someone who can speak about all three in the same discussion.

The only one who thinks that evolution includes everything from the first atom to the first life is you. No scientist that I know would make such a mistake.

If you want to talk origin of species with me, we're going to get to your "Adam," and I'm going to ask, "Okay, where did HE come from." And if you tell me "He came from an ape," I'll ask, "Where did the ape come from," and if you we work all the back to "basic DNA," I'm going to ask "where did THAT come from.." and eventually you're going to start talking amino acids and I'm going to go, "AHA!"

All of those are scientific questions, but not all of them are answered with the same theory. If you asked me about the latest gravitational theories and I didn't have an answer, would that mean the theory of evolution is false? Of course not. Each theory explains specific phenomena.

See, Creationists think "imperfect" and "questions that remain unanswered" that revolve around the basic laws of physics equal = "the theory fails the test of science."

They think incorrectly. No theory is ever perfect, otherwise people wouldn't be testing them all of the time. No theory is ever accepted as being absolutely true. So far, none of the evidence falsifies the Big Bang theory, but there are phenomena that it doesn't have an answer for yet. Further study of the unknowns may require a rewriting or complete dismissal of the theory, but for now it explains everything we do know.

You believe there is no "better" explanation, Young Earthers think there is. They want a chance to present that view to you.

Then do so. Start a new thread with evidence of a young earth and methods for dating the earth that only return dates of 10,000 years or less.

See, I took biology, and chemistry, and physics. I read the text books. I made A's on the tests. I read the questions raised by creationists, I debunked some of their statements, but I AlSO debunked some of the claims made by the evolutionists.

Such as?

Did you ever study the data offered by the Young_earth folk? When they talk about the helium ratios, did you ever go back and find out if the rate of loss is the same as the rate of production?

Are you talking about zircons or the atmosphere?

Zircons.

Atmosphere.

If you want to discuss either of these further start a new thread and I would be happy to participate.

I do know that the statement you just made is false in as far as the creation scientists that I have read. They have included these mechanisms in their research, and the data still shows that the loss rate does NOT account for the amount of helium that should be in our atmosphere if we have been in this process for 4.6 billion years.

Then link to it. I wait with anticipation.

Now that's a fun question. Are you suggesting that every living creature on earth is actually one species?

Or are you just condoning that biology has not yet defined the word species?

If you mean there is one - then science would be wrong about the number of currently identified species.

Answer the question. If the world were shown to be older than 6,000 years old does that make evolution right? If all species or "kinds" are not found in the earliest sediments, does this make evolution automatically right?

I'll grant your statement about logical fallacies. In fact I think you just created one you didn't intend to create.

If creationists have not yet proven there are separate species, then neither have biologists, and yet, biologists claim there are.

If members from two different populations do not interbreed then they are separate species. Last I heard, sea gulls and bears do not interbreed so I am pretty sure they are separate species. We also see new species forming in today's world, so we know that interbreeding is not a test for relatedness. Instead, genetic comparisons and fossil intermediates support relatedness.

How do "Sterile offspring" that "lack interbreeding" produce new life forms?

The parents that produced the sterile offspring are the new life forms.

Also, the page you cited says that they technically one of their examples is the SAME SPECIES. I asked about marco evolution - evolution from one species to another.

There was more than one example, and those other examples included separate populations that did not interbreed.

You've shown a fish mixed with a fish gives you a new fish.

I asked you to mix a horse with a pig and get a human.

Did I read correctly when you said that you had taken college level biology classes? This statement seems to run counter to that claim.

Why would you get a human by mixing a horse and a pig? Where in the theory of evolution does it say that this is even possible, or even predicted?

Creationists have NEVER objected to the idea that a fish with a fish, even a different version of fish, can produce a fish.

And yet they create an uproar if a primate produces two new primate lineages if those primates are humans and chimps. Strange, isn't it? You would think that they would at least try and be consistent.

We will ALWAYS disagree with the concept that a fish out of water became a man.

So will I, since humans are mammals which evolved from reptiles. However, there are transitionals between amphibians and fish, such as Acanthostega:

 

[LittleNipper]

As a non-expert in the field of scientific study, I can honestly say that I appreciate the work & knowledge of such experts. I simply do not believe what they say, as deeply, as they expect that I should believe them.

 

[LittleNipper]

So will I, since humans are mammals which evolved from reptiles. However, there are transitionals between amphibians and fish, such as Acanthostega:

SHOW US A MERMAID!

 

[Loudmouth]

SHOW US A MERMAID!

Why? A mermaid would be the wet dream of every creationist. It would falsify the theory of evolution.

 

[Aron-Ra]

There's plenty of evidence for those who seek it.

Well its about time! I've been on usenet and boards like this since 1998, and no one NO ONE has ever been able to show me any evidence at all either that a god exists or that we even have a soul. Up to now, everyone said you just have to believe these things on faith because there wasn't any evidence. But you say you have some? Great! What is it? What can you show me from the realm of logical or physical evidence that can be objectively indicated or vindicated in any way?

No one is all bad, just like no one is all good. All have sinned and fallen short, yet God still loves us. Pretty amazing! He's certainly not like us.

How do you know that? How can anyone pretend to know anything about God?

Then the wages of sin are exactly the same as the wages of forgiveness reborn in Christ. Because you and I are both going to die in the body. And your Bible promises that you will continue after that only if you believe in him. I'll just stay dead, and therefore cannot go to Hell to be tortured by your all forgiving god of love.

You too will continue on, just not where you'd prefer to.

Not according to your bible. Because that says that without accepting Christ, I will not have everlasting life -of any kind.

No sir. Prayer is no more reliable than talking to yourself -as if speaking to an imaginary friend. In fact, its exactly like that!

There are countless thousands of people who would disagree with you. I'm one of them.

And there are billions who disagree with you. But something false isn't going to become true no matter how many people believe in it.

In Galileo's time, almost no one believed in heliocentricity. But it still turned out to be true, didn't it?

The point is, if prayer were reliable, then you wouldn't need doctors, or police either. You need these other things because prayer is so woefully unreliable, and there is no kind of research you could point to which would ever indicate otherwise. Answered prayers tend to be in the minority, and in every case, there is another explanation that makes a lot more sense.

If you are God's child, He will comfort you in your time of need. Ask some of the mothers and fathers of some of the kids you mentioned above, they will all tell you that God answered their prayers.

Fortunately, I don't know any of those people. But I have heard of a few who dropped thier belief in God specifically because those prayers weren't answered. Can you find me one person who's child was abducted, molested, tortured and murdered -who would say that God answered their prayers?

Prayer has far more reliable results than anything else you could ever hold up to it.

I'd like to quote you on that when they're rushing you into a trauma center.

"I feel like a Christian scientist with an appendicitis."
--Tom Lehrer, Comedian

I would say only the basics are required. And creationists habitually never understand those. For example, biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphology, physiology, or developmental biology,

Up to here I'm with you!

which (when compiled over successive generations) can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

The word can is interesting, it leaves the door open for a lot changes. I can't put my arms around those changes because it is only when someone such as yourself tells me this that I could even entertain the idea of this leading to descendant branches. There is nothing other than you and your experiments that could lead one to believe this.

How about the more than 200 different distinct breeds of dogs recognized by the American Kennel Club?

For example, there are no transitional forms between an ape and man.

You can't be serious!
First of all, humans are apes by all the criteria required of that clade. But I would guess that by that word you mean something like one of the very few apes you've ever heard of, just the non-human great apes that are still alive today. The closest one in our ancestry to what you're thinking of would probably be Dryopithecus. If you want the half-way link between us and that, look at either Homo habilis or Kenyanthropus platyops. If you need another half way point between us and them, look at Homo ergester, or one of the many varieties of Homo erectus. If you want to go the other way and point out yet another transitional form between "apes" and men, you could look at Australopithecus afarensis or Ardipithecus ramidus. So far, we have fossil remains representing as many as 4,000 individuals from what are currently estimated to be more than a dozen species which are all definitely transitional between men and what you think of as apes. Of course that all depends on what an ape is, doesn't it? Be prepared to define that word -so that if we ever found a new kind of ape-like thing never seen before, we would have some way to tell whether it really was an ape or not.

Have you even discussed this with an evolutionist before? How could you have and not know better than what you just said?

So to answer your question directly I don't know if I can, but here it goes. I believe this to be the theory that evolution is attempting to sustain but I don't believe it to be a fact, but it explains your position.

No sir, what I gave you was not a theory. It is a fact that was taken for granted by livestock breeders and people of agriculture since time immemorial. Contrary to your reservations, we know for certain that this happens, and the modern synthesis theory of evolution is the only explanation for how that happens. Before Darwin came along, the best explanation anyone had was the Lamarkian theory of aquired characteristics. Mendelo-Darwinian selection genetics replaced that, and is now the foundation of modern biology. In fact, way back in the 1930s, pioneer geneticist, (and Orthodox Christian) Theodosius Dobzhansky said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

I would prefer we come at this from the way I presented my objections in post #171. Do you feel that you can adequately address those two points, if so I think we can accomplish something.

Yes I can adequately address those two points. In both of them, you state that you've rejected what you must surely realize is an awful lot of scientific data on the excuse of your own ignorance blinded by your preconceived notion that a particular compilation of man-made fables is really the "word-of-God". If you only knew some of the history of the Bible and how that was put together, you'd never say that again! 2nd, you dismiss advanced astrophysics and real-world geophysics discoveries again out of ignorance by your own admission, but also on incredulity (because the numbers are too big for you to understand). But you also break irony meters by dismissing all this peer-reviewed research of billion-dollar industries because of the "many assumptions" you assume to be involved. In other words, you are utterly clueless about any aspect of this topic, and have consequently been fooled by fraudulent propaganda. Now let's do something about that, shall we?