Evolution or Creationism?

[Loudmouth]

George who?

Abraham who?

Where did you hear of those guys?

From the evidence of their lives including archaeological evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

From the evidence of their lives including archaeological evidence.

Then why are you asking about this George guy chopping down a cherry tree?

If you have the evidence at your disposal, what does it tell you?

(Or, as I suspect, are you getting this information from a book?)

 

[HitchSlap]

Then why are you asking about this George guy chopping down a cherry tree?

If you have the evidence at your disposal, what does it tell you?

(Or, as I suspect, are you getting this information from a book?)

If it's written down, this should be gold for you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why are you asking about this George guy chopping down a cherry tree?

Why won't you answer it?

 

[Astrophile]

What type of evidence would show that evolution had no goal or purpose?

Perhaps evidence that most species of animals and plants have become extinct without leaving any descendants.
Alternatively, Richard Dawkins has pointed out that cheetahs appear to be designed to catch gazelles and gazelles appear to be designed to escape from cheetahs. Is there any goal or purpose in these two appearances of design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps evidence that most species of animals and plants have become extinct without leaving any descendants.

That seems to be more of a problem for a purely evolutionary model than for the Design model.

Alternatively, Richard Dawkins has pointed out that cheetahs appear to be designed to catch gazelles and gazelles appear to be designed to escape from cheetahs. Is there any goal or purpose in these two appearances of design?

Dawkins tends to simplify things to extreme.

 

[Loudmouth]

What type of evidence would show that evolution had no goal or purpose?

No one can prove a negative, so all I can do is describe the evidence that would be consistent with evolutionary pathways that don' thave a goal or purpose.

If evolution were goalless, then we would see mutations that were random with respect to fitness.

We would see lineage specific adaptations instead of the same adaptation spread across different lineages.

As mentioned above, we would see extinct side branches on the tree of life.

Or perhaps you could describe what you think positive evidence for goals and purpose would be, and your reasoning behind them.

 

[Loudmouth]

That seems to be more of a problem for a purely evolutionary model than for the Design model.

How so?

If a species was the goal of evolution, why mess around with side branches that were just going to go extinct?

 

[SkyWriting]

I see that logic is far out of your filed. You failed again.

I filed agin. Rats.

 

[Zosimus]

Perhaps evidence that most species of animals and plants have become extinct without leaving any descendants.
Alternatively, Richard Dawkins has pointed out that cheetahs appear to be designed to catch gazelles and gazelles appear to be designed to escape from cheetahs. Is there any goal or purpose in these two appearances of design?

Yes, he did. Of course, if his logic is sound, then we can similarly conclude that the three races in the game of StarCraft (Human, Zerg, and Protoss) seem to be designed to thwart one another.

I guess that we can similarly conclude that these races could not have been designed.

 

[Zosimus]

No one can prove a negative...

So you think it's impossible to prove that heavier rocks do NOT fall faster than light rocks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I filed agin. Rats.

Well at least you can make a weak joke when someone posts a typo. It is a pity that you can't argue logically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think it's impossible to prove that heavier rocks do NOT fall faster than light rocks?

Some "negatives" can be proven, at least to a reasonable degree. And yes, we can "prove" that there was no flood.

 

[USincognito]

Those transitional fossils required a very powerful Imaginator in order to slap a butch of bones together and dogmatically claim it's your ancestor.

Please, stop with the hyperbole and histrionics. Transitional fossils are those that exhibit the characteristics of two taxa. No imagination needed. No "dogmatic" claims. That you do not like the fact that we have transitional fossils doesn't make them go away.

Genetic code alone does nothing but has to be read by a certain living cell. Put spider DNA in a man will not produced Spiderman without a very power Imaginator. You must be a believer in the selfish gene religion.

I have no idea what this histrionic gibberish has to do with what I wrote about genetics. You sure do offer your opinion a lot on subjects about which you have no knowledge.

 

[USincognito]

Now we all know by now the fossil never supported evolution.A All those transitional are totally based on human opinion which is why they are continuously changing.B Even Mary Leakey admitted to this yet still believed she evolved.C Stasis is the word when it comes to fossils.D

A. Which fossil is that?
B. Please, don't be so coy. Give us a few examples.
C. When did she "admit" this and what did she say?
D. Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human"?

Well the "science" points in many directions as it already been proven without a doubt that similar genes doesn't automatically mean common ancestor. When something contradicts the evolutionist prediction they just called it co-evolution.A When evolution is the foundation of science then you can't use science to prove evolution.B Once you include yourself in your theory then evolution explain everything about you including your thoughts which ends up explaining nothing.C This is nothing but idol worship.D

A. Please stop with the empty rhetoric and provide actual citations for your claims.
B. This sentence is gibberish.
C. This sentence is run on gibberish.
D. Hyperbole and histrionics in lieu of actual evidence.

 

[USincognito]

Again even Mark Leakey admit it no where as simple as Talkorigins make people believe.

Again, what did she supposedly say and when did she say it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is that a typo?

Sure was, thanks for catching that. Should read life can only come from life. The rest is just pipe dreams.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation


"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

Its environment, and what state it's in.

Exactly - how much energy that state of matter contains.

The mind, or consciousness, is a product if the brain. It's one of the things the human brain does. Switch the brain off and you switch consciousness off.

And the brain isn't dead until all electrical activity ceases. Yet energy cannot be destroyed, it merely changes form.

Me? You want me to come up with the causes of the cambrian explosion? Look, if you want to shoe-horn your god into that particular period in natural history you need to provide evidence that your god was involved in the evolutionary process half a billion years ago, and I'm not sure that's something that really helps your cause much.

Nor does it help yours that you rely on processes you can't even conceive of. You can call a miracle theory if you so desire.

So we have oncedeceived arguing the brains are "not so different" and you arguing that the differences are absolutely crucial because god made them that way and that's why we are different. That evolution solves all the problems here doesn't strike you as a reasonable option?

Ever seen any new creature come into existence except by breed mating with breed? So why would you propose a solution that matches none of the data in the fossil record? So no, evolution doesn't sound reasonable at all. What does sound reasonable is Kind after Kind, regardless of how many breeds make up a Kind. Ever seen a Husky become anything other than a Husky, until it mated with another breed and produced another breed overnight? No, of course you haven't. Then why propose something against all observations? At no time did the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. There are no missing transitions because the transitions between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook are non-existent. Just as in the fossil record.

Of course it affects your consciousness. And your personality. Have you never seen someone's personality change when they get drunk? Actually, alcohol abuse is an interesting example. People with long term alcoholism sometimes develop korsakoff syndrome where their ability to make new memories is damaged beyond repair and they live in a perpetual moment of awakening from a time in their past. Weird, huh? Enough to put anyone off booze.

It's why you are warned to drink with temperance, huh. A different person, or just desires and so forth acting beyond conscious control due to over stimulation of electrical nerve centers, or in some cases numbing those electrical nerve centers?

Well, the undamaged part of the brain is still the same brain, but you do see personality changes in some people with brain damage. I suspect it depends which part of the brain is damaged.



Consciousness is a product of the brain. No brain, no consciousness. That's the equation.

Personality changes, or just the same person no longer able to access or express oneself in the same manner one did before?


Says who? you? You sure were unwillingly to express opinion about the beginning of life, but you are going to tell me what consciousness is or isn't?


We both know it is an energetic process unique to living animals. An electrical one to be exact. But why wouldn't it be, being those same protons and electrons that make up dust, just in a charged state? Yet matter, whatever it's state or charge, can never cross that barrier.

 

[SkyWriting]

Medical doctors usually do not have a very good science education. Your quote supports my claim.

Two of the dumbest sentences I've ever seen squashed together.
You'll be challenged to find any "not very good" science classes here:

• Preclinical Year I
• Preclinical Year II
• HST Courses
• Core Clerkships
• Elective Courses
• HMS-Division of Medical Sciences

 

[Subduction Zone]

Two of the dumbest sentences I've ever seen squashed together.
You'll be challenged to find any "not very good" science classes here:

• Preclinical Year I
• Preclinical Year II
• HST Courses
• Core Clerkships
• Elective Courses
• HMS-Division of Medical Sciences

Not too much actual science in their. Yes, there are classes where knowledge acquired through the scientific method is taught. But that is not the same as science. Again, when it comes to actual science doctors are not even good generalists usually. They are very good at the science of medicine, they are not very good biologists. They are terrible physicists and geologists.

 

[Smidlee]

Two of the dumbest sentences I've ever seen squashed together.
You'll be challenged to find any "not very good" science classes here:

• Preclinical Year I
• Preclinical Year II
• HST Courses
• Core Clerkships
• Elective Courses
• HMS-Division of Medical Sciences

You know what he meant . He meant by science is evolution. Doctors have more important things to learn than the evolution nonsense. They are not part of the biologist cult.