Evolution vs. Creation: hovind debate

[AuraTwilight]

Because there is no evidence supporting such a hypothesis?

Better answer: It's NOT SCIENCE!

It's like forming a Church of Atheism.

 

[Dannager]

<-haven't checked this in some time, but I saw that it came back and I missed out on a lot of golden opportunities to comment on some wonderful closed mindedness:

Oh, you're off to a good start.

1- earlier I pointed out that evolution is unlikely because there is currently no reputable theories as far as how the thing started. We know it's here... we know it wasn't always here... therefore it started. Evolution says "This little bacteria evolved into everything from other bacteria to trees and people" ... and it's best guess as to how that first bacteria got there is... (silence)... well we know the first bacteria evolved this way...

My question is: How do we know it's sexual patterns when we don't know what "it" was? We think amino acids just... kinda bumped together in the ocean... and... you know... started reproducing in a specific way?

And why can we still not replicate the idea of inanimate liquids becoming animate?

It was aptly said that biogenisis is no part of the evolution theory. Therefore the evolution theory is fundamentally without a very important step: How it started. What kicked it off.

Except that step isn't important to understanding the process of evolution itself. At all.

He's not even saying not to teach it, only to point out that it's a -THEORY- that some people have.

You mean most people have. And the vast majority of the experts. You know, the ones who can actually tell if it's correct or not.

That there is both evidence FOR and AGAINST it.

No, there's not. There's a boatload of evidence for and no evidence against it. A lot of people think (or like to believe) that there is, but it's all been refuted pretty handily.

Teach both sides. It's possible that life just magically poofed into existence with no cause whatsoever. However, it should be taught that an equal theory is that -something- may have caused the same magic poof that evolutionists hold their faith in. It may have been space fairies or the christian God or the flying spaghetti monster... -who- poofed it and why are for the children to decide based on their religious beliefs.

Except that's not an equal theory. First, it's not a theory at all. Theories require falsifiability tests, which a magical "poof" cannot provide. Thus, not a theory. Second, it has no evidence, whereas evolutionary theory has more evidence than any one person could ever hope to fully study.

But what's so intimidating about allowing them to hold faith in the religion they choose? Isn't this a free country?

They're free to hold whatever ridiculous religious beliefs they want. They're not free to tell our children that they have anything even remotely resembling scientific validity.

Since when is it OK to say "that's nice, but your silly religion is wrong. Science has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God and we magically poofed into existence from nothing at all."

I don't think the theory of evolution says that. At all. Tone it down a little. You're getting ahead of yourself.

... too many tangents that should be addressed at once. Probably just need to start this thread over in another place... keep it simple for you smart science folks... one thing at a time. You may be able to handle that a bit better. Small sentances, and small ideas for minds that have been closed to everything except what they can read from their text books.

Okay, stop. None of that. What's your problem? You're the guy trying to pass non-science off as science. That's not called having an open mind. That's just called being wrong. Calling any of the evolutionists here "close-minded" is perhaps the most laughable thing I've ever heard. These guys are incredibly flexible in their ability to reason and understand, certainly more so than your typical young earth creationist.

You know... cuz books can't lie. Except the bible.

The Bible doesn't lie. It's just not correct sometimes.

 

[FishFace]

<-haven't checked this in some time, but I saw that it came back and I missed out on a lot of golden opportunities to comment on some wonderful closed mindedness:

I'll comment on the best ones... if you see something specific that you want a comment on let me know and I'll comment on that too:

1- earlier I pointed out that evolution is unlikely because there is currently no reputable theories as far as how the thing started. We know it's here... we know it wasn't always here... therefore it started. Evolution says "This little bacteria evolved into everything from other bacteria to trees and people" ... and it's best guess as to how that first bacteria got there is... (silence)... well we know the first bacteria evolved this way...

My question is: How do we know it's sexual patterns when we don't know what "it" was? We think amino acids just... kinda bumped together in the ocean... and... you know... started reproducing in a specific way?

How do you think your DNA replicates, Greg? I'll give you a hint - your DNA just... kinda bumps into an enzyme... and... you know... reproduces! When you get down to it, every single thing that happens in your body is due to one molecule, by chance, bumping into another molecule. It has to bump in the correct way, otherwise nothing will happen. It has to also bump fast enough or again, nothing will happen. (But not too fast, or the molecules could be damaged.)
This is all that basically happened in the ancient oceans. Chemical reactions happened, end produced a cycle of chemical reactions where the last step fed the first, leading to autocatalysis. This is all life is today, just with a lot of intermediate steps - a cycle of chemical reactions that sustains itself.

And why can we still not replicate the idea of inanimate liquids becoming animate?

It was aptly said that biogenisis is no part of the evolution theory. Therefore the evolution theory is fundamentally without a very important step: How it started. What kicked it off.

WROOONG. It is no problem that the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't hypothesise where the first germs came from. It is no issue with the Law of Gravitation that we don't know exactly how the universe started. There's no scientific controversy with thermodynamics because we don't know where the original lack of entropy came from.

Saying that evolution is a bad theory because it misses the step of how everything started is as ludicrous as the following:
Imagine you've lost a sock. You hypothesise that the sock was removed from the wash accidentally and given to someone else in your home. I come along and say, "Ahah, but does that explain how the sock was made? No! It doesn't! Your theory is missing a vital step! I'll tell you what actually happened - the Flying Spaghetti Monster made that sock, and he also made it disappear into thin air with his noodly appendage!"

Seriously. This complaint is that bizarre.

And Hovind's being thrown in jail for corrupting the scientific minds of america?

Noo, that's the whole point of the comparison - Al Capone wasn't jailed for bootlegging or murder or anything like that, he was finally pinned due to tax evasion.
Likewise, Hovind wasn't thrown behind bars because he corrupted the youth of Athens, I mean, America, but for tax evasion.

He's not even saying not to teach it

Do you really want to make me trawl through one of his ghastly videos to prove that wrong? He says, repeatedly, that evolution is "not science" and mustn't be taught on public money.

only to point out that it's a -THEORY- that some people have.

Yawn, just like the Germ Theory of Disease.

That there is both evidence FOR and AGAINST it. Teach both sides.

There are no two sides. There's only one way of explaining the nested phylogenetic and ERV insertion hierarchy, Vitamin C mutations and human chromosome number 2.

It's possible that life just magically poofed into existence with no cause whatsoever. However, it should be taught that an equal theory is that -something- may have caused the same magic poof that evolutionists hold their faith in.

Nowhere in the Biology curriculum is it taught that "life just magically poofed into existence with no cause whatsoever." Abiogenesis is not on the curriculum, evolution is. If abiogenesis were on the curriculum it would not be "life magically poofed into existence," it would be "life gradually arose, from simple chemical reactions, to more complex chemical cycles, to those cycles occurring in a separate, cellular environment, to life."

It may have been space fairies or the christian God or the flying spaghetti monster... -who- poofed it and why are for the children to decide based on their religious beliefs.

But that's not science, so it's not taught in a science classroom.

But what's so intimidating about allowing them to hold faith in the religion they choose?

Top marks for irrelevance, here - perhaps you're projecting your own feelings of intimidation onto everyone else.

Isn't this a free country? Since when is it OK to say "that's nice, but your silly religion is wrong. Science has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God and we magically poofed into existence from nothing at all."

It is alright to entertain notions of God in a religious studies classroom. In a science classroom, there are standards of evidence that have to be considered.

Then why does the scientific community specifically consider anyone holding the theory that life may have been created by something not from this earth discredited?

Because there is no evidence for it, there can be no evidence for it and, more importantly perhaps, there can be no evidence against it.

So much so that they'd throw someone in jail for suggesting the idea and pointing out the deficiencies in their own theory?

-but Hovind's in jail for tax evasion-

Indeed...

... too many tangents that should be addressed at once. Probably just need to start this thread over in another place... keep it simple for you smart science folks... one thing at a time. You may be able to handle that a bit better. Small sentances, and small ideas for minds that have been closed to everything except what they can read from their text books.

Closed to everything except that which can be observed, poked, prodded and tested. You know, closed to everything except that which we can be reasonably sure is true. Closed to such things that have to be regarded as absolute, untouchable "Truth" but which have no justification behind them whatsoever.

I can match you - rant for rant - and I didn't even have to call anyone closed or small minded.

 

[RedAndy]

<-haven't checked this in some time, but I saw that it came back and I missed out on a lot of golden opportunities to comment on some wonderful closed mindedness.

There is a staggering concentration of irony around here.

Scientists come up with a theory explaining the diversity of life on earth, collect a lot of evidence for the theory being accurate, decisively refute a number of perceived objections to the theory, and maintain and improve the theory for 150 years without it being falsified, and yet they are called closed-minded by groups of people who follow the literal word of a book written five thousand years ago by an unknown author who had next to no scientific knowledge about life on earth!

 

[The Gregorian]

It doesn't matter too much how life began, with regard to evolution. Once there was a self replicator that made mistakes when replicating (regardless how it came about) then evolution was in full swing. Regardless, evolution and abiogenesis are separate ideas.

... The first step doesn't matter? Where... did you learn that? And why did you pay for that sort of nonsense?

I would like to quote Issac Asimov at this point:
"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

It's a theory with the first step completely missing, the next few steps being untestable, unfalsifiable, and having never been observed, and the last few steps being complete speculation.
And it's taught in our schools as indisputable fact?

Because there is no evidence supporting such a hypothesis?

Burden of proof, lad. If you speculate that because a few finches have mildly specialized shapes, all finches come from a common ancestor... that would be rational. If you, then, deduce that all finches come from the same common ancestor as all strawberries... that is a little bit of a leap of faith. It's up to you to prove that wild guess.

The fact that the best proof for evolution is that it cannot be disproved shows it's flaw. Lack of evidence is not evidence. That's pretty basic.

 

[shinbits]

... The first step doesn't matter? Where... did you learn that? And why did you pay for that sort of nonsense?

he means that evolution is not about how life started, but about how species became so varied.

It's a theory with the first step completely missing, the next few steps being untestable, unfalsifiable, and having never been observed, and the last few steps being complete speculation.
And it's taught in our schools as indisputable fact?

again, evolution aims to explain species variation, NOT abiogenesis, the origin of life. And "speculation" means that you are assuming without evidence. There is much evidence that backs evolution. Evolution does not speculate, but draws conclusions from evidence.

Burden of proof, lad. If you speculate that because a few finches have mildly specialized shapes, all finches come from a common ancestor... that would be rational. If you, then, deduce that all finches come from the same common ancestor as all strawberries...

this agian goes back to the origin of life, and what the first life forms were. That's not what evolution deals with. Evolution deals with how these life forms got so varied.

that is a little bit of a leap of faith. It's up to you to prove that wild guess.

if u took the time to understand the painstakingly detailed process that goes into scientific research, u'd see that nothing about evolution is a wild guess.

The fact that the best proof for evolution is that it cannot be disproved shows it's flaw. Lack of evidence is not evidence. That's pretty basic.

Evolution can be disproved. If you ever find a winged horse, you have disproved evolution.

 

[The Gregorian]

Except that step isn't important to understanding the process of evolution itself. At all.

it's... the... first... step. It is, indeed important.

You mean most people have. And the vast majority of the experts. You know, the ones who can actually tell if it's correct or not.

Simply because they define what correct is or is not? Because they have the authority, regardless of what any sort of evidence says?

Anyone who makes such a claim is a religious nut.

No, there's not. There's a boatload of evidence for and no evidence against it. A lot of people think (or like to believe) that there is, but it's all been refuted pretty handily.

Ah... so absolutely no evidence to suggest evolution may not be viable? Because anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions is automatically refuted by the fact that it disagrees with you?

That's religion, not science. You're free to have your religion. But you shouldn't stifle the minds of tomorrow by mandating that they must conform to your guesses or be banished from the scientific community.

Except that's not an equal theory. First, it's not a theory at all. Theories require falsifiability tests, which a magical "poof" cannot provide. Thus, not a theory. Second, it has no evidence, whereas evolutionary theory has more evidence than any one person could ever hope to fully study.

And... the magical "poof" that evolution started with? At least creationism has a -cause- for such a magical poof. Your poof is not even attempted to be explained, except that it specifically has no cause. Does it not take just as much faith to say "something created this" as it does to say "this was created, but had no cause?"

They're free to hold whatever ridiculous religious beliefs they want. They're not free to tell our children that they have anything even remotely resembling scientific validity.

Exactly my point. Religion should be up to the student's personal choice. Teach science... not illogical religious theories like evolution.

I don't think the theory of evolution says that. At all. Tone it down a little. You're getting ahead of yourself.

"They're free to hold whatever ridiculous religious beliefs they want." Direct quote from you.
The idea that we don't know or care what started evolution, and we have no solid evidence for it beyond stipulation, but it is irrefutable fact, and that anything to the contrary is "ridiculous religious belief"...

You don't see how two faced that is? No irony there?

Okay, stop. None of that. What's your problem? You're the guy trying to pass non-science off as science. That's not called having an open mind. That's just called being wrong. Calling any of the evolutionists here "close-minded" is perhaps the most laughable thing I've ever heard. These guys are incredibly flexible in their ability to reason and understand, certainly more so than your typical young earth creationist.

1: Did you read any of what I've said? I'm -NOT- saying creationism is science. It is religion. That's my point, that's Hovind's point, that's the whole point of this thread. I am saying a magical poof that hasn't even been attempted to be explained (evolution) is just as much of a religion as a creation with a source (any other creationism)
2: "incredibly flexible reasoning" ... I like that, and I agree.
3: The fact that you say it's laughable to call any evolutionist closed minded proves my point. I can admit many creationists are closed minded. Specifically many christians are closed minded. Some aren't. Many evolutionists are open minded. The people who say that evolution is an absolute law that doesn't need to be proven and that there is absolutely "no evidence against it" are indeed done learning... regardless of what logic or any evidence says.

The Bible doesn't lie. It's just not correct sometimes.

But the book you paid $100 for in college is infallible? The one that teaches evolution holds NO false teachings? No pictures that have been proven wrong years ago? Read it again... look for some pictures of fetuses... and by pictures, I mean drawings, of course. Presented as fact... admitted to have been fabricated decades ago.

 

[s41nn0n]

Yes it does. You're taking what he says to be true solely because he says it. That is based upon his now non-existant reputation.

yes but he has got reputable sources and they are all true. Have you acctually seen his seminars?

 

[ENominiPatri]

it's... the... first... step. It is, indeed important.

Paying attention is far more important. Evolution explains what happens to life after it already exists. Does the theory of Gravitation suddenly fail because it doesn't explain how gravity was created? Honestly dude this stuff is 5th grade material and you're 22.

 

[Belfry]

yes but he has got reputable sources and they are all true.

In the relatively few cases where he cites reputable sources, they don't actually support his conclusions.

Have you acctually seen his seminars?

I have. They're quite entertaining. He's embarrassing even to other creationists (many of his arguments are on AiG's "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"). This is a guy who not only claims that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, he claims, "Many scientists theorize that T-rex probably breathed fire."

 

[The Gregorian]

How do you think your DNA replicates, Greg? I'll give you a hint - your DNA just... kinda bumps into an enzyme... and... you know... reproduces! When you get down to it, every single thing that happens in your body is due to one molecule, by chance, bumping into another molecule. It has to bump in the correct way, otherwise nothing will happen. It has to also bump fast enough or again, nothing will happen. (But not too fast, or the molecules could be damaged.)

And DNA replicates at a relatively steady rate. DNA doesn't replicate a whole lot for a while, then stop for thousands of years (otherwise we would all die). So why is it we have never observed or even explained how it's possible for non-organic substances to become alive?

WROOONG. It is no problem that the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't hypothesise where the first germs came from. It is no issue with the Law of Gravitation that we don't know exactly how the universe started. There's no scientific controversy with thermodynamics because we don't know where the original lack of entropy came from.

Decent point... however, the law of gravitation doesn't make statements like "billions of years ago gravity worked completely different than anything we've observed or have seen evidence for." Evolution specifically deals with the origin of the species. I'm pretty sure there was a book about that even. eherm. If evolution were observations on how to cross-breed dogs in the present... that would have nothing to do with how dogs came from fish. That would be science. Microevolution is observable and something that currently happens. Macroevolution/organic evolution has never been observed, rationally explained, and is religion. The concept SHOULD be mentioned as a possibility just like it SHOULD be mentioned that it's possible that someone or something may have created the earth... not "the christian God"... that's for the individual to find in their own heart... but "something."

Theories about what we can observe -today- don't necessarily need to include it's origins... just how we can observe their function.

Evolution specifically deals with origins... but misses the -first- step.... and relies on nothing but speculation. When's the last time they've been able to breed a group of fish until they got a non-fish? Or a group of birds until they got a non-bird? We've never observed that, and our best explanation is that it "could happen after billions and billions of years"... that's not science.

Saying that evolution is a bad theory because it misses the step of how everything started is as ludicrous as the following:
Imagine you've lost a sock. You hypothesise that the sock was removed from the wash accidentally and given to someone else in your home. I come along and say, "Ahah, but does that explain how the sock was made? No! It doesn't! Your theory is missing a vital step! I'll tell you what actually happened - the Flying Spaghetti Monster made that sock, and he also made it disappear into thin air with his noodly appendage!"

Seriously. This complaint is that bizarre.

Again, that theory has nothing to do with how the sock came to be. Evolution isn't about what currently is... but how what is got here. No sane person has a problem with observable evolution (microevolution, selectively passing along traits which are already there, which is how lap dogs came into existance).

Noo, that's the whole point of the comparison - Al Capone wasn't jailed for bootlegging or murder or anything like that, he was finally pinned due to tax evasion.
Likewise, Hovind wasn't thrown behind bars because he corrupted the youth of Athens, I mean, America, but for tax evasion.

The fact that you make that comparison is exactly my point.

There are no two sides. There's only one way of explaining the nested phylogenetic and ERV insertion hierarchy, Vitamin C mutations and human chromosome number 2.

yep... it's silly to call any evolutionist closed minded. They would never say something like "there's only one way of explaining (enter his opinion here). And it's infallable. Any evidence against it is proven wrong by the fact that such an observation disagrees with my speculation."

... and the rest of fishface's post is... something I won't flame.

next.

 

[Elduran]

In the relatively few cases where he cites reputable sources, they don't actually support his conclusions.

I have. They're quite entertaining. He's embarrassing even to other creationists (many of his arguments are on AiG's "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"). This is a guy who not only claims that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, he claims, "Many scientists theorize that T-rex probably breathed fire."

Not to mention the fact that he took at face value a claim on a random web page that showed an obviously fake fossil of a T-rex eating a human, then cited it as proof of the fact that dinosaurs and humans co-existing. He didn't even bother to check the authenticity of the claim before he declared it fact in front of probably thousands of people.

Nice!

 

[Belfry]

And DNA replicates at a relatively steady rate. DNA doesn't replicate a whole lot for a while, then stop for thousands of years (otherwise we would all die). So why is it we have never observed or even explained how it's possible for non-organic substances to become alive?

Are you equating DNA replication with the formation of new life form from inorganic compounds? The last sentence seems to have little to do with the first part of the paragraph.

In any case, abiogenesis is something that's still being worked on. The Miller-Urey type of experiments have gone a long way towards showing that abiogenesis is plausible. If science had all of the answers already, scientists would all be out of jobs.

Decent point... however, the law of gravitation doesn't make statements like "billions of years ago gravity worked completely different than anything we've observed or have seen evidence for."

Nor does evolutionary theory.

Evolution specifically deals with the origin of the species. I'm pretty sure there was a book about that even. eherm.

The "Origin of Species," yes, not "the origin of THE species." It is about how one species gives rise to new species, not how the first living species originated. Try reading it sometime! It's available free online.

If evolution were observations on how to cross-breed dogs in the present... that would have nothing to do with how dogs came from fish. That would be science.

Ah, but there's where you're wrong - variation and selection in dogs has a LOT to do with how dogs and fish share a common ancestor.

Microevolution is observable and something that currently happens. Macroevolution/organic evolution has never been observed, rationally explained, and is religion.

Macroevolution is not an event, nor does it use a novel mechanism; it is the result of an accumulation of microevolutionary changes. You're saying, you can't get to 1,000 by adding ones together, because 1+1 only equals 2!

Perhaps you can present an accepted definition of religion for us, and show us how macroevolution or abiogenesis fits that definition?

The concept SHOULD be mentioned as a possibility just like it SHOULD be mentioned that it's possible that someone or something may have created the earth... not "the christian God"... that's for the individual to find in their own heart... but "something."

Now THAT'S religion!

Theories about what we can observe -today- don't necessarily need to include it's origins... just how we can observe their function.

Uh huh. And we observe all of the mechanisms of evolution in action today.

Evolution specifically deals with origins... but misses the -first- step.... and relies on nothing but speculation. When's the last time they've been able to breed a group of fish until they got a non-fish? Or a group of birds until they got a non-bird? We've never observed that, and our best explanation is that it "could happen after billions and billions of years"... that's not science.

Right, and what you describe is NOT predicted by evolutionary theory. If we bred a group of birds and got non-birds, that would be a PROBLEM for evolutionary theory. However, we have observed the development of new species, both in the lab and in the wild, and this is in line with our expectations from evolutionary theory.

Common ancestry is not based on speculation. It's based on observations - of patterns in morphology and genetics of living things, and of course the progression seen in the fossil record. It's many different lines of evidence, all converging to support the same explanation. And the brilliant thing is, it explains it using mechanisms that are observable in the present. Those same mechanisms that allowed us to develop thousands of breeds of dogs from the same wolf ancestors are essentially those that explain the larger taxonomic patterns (except of course that humans were not usually the direct "selection" agents).

You know, Linnaeus first developed his taxonomic classification system long before Darwin. By observing patterns in the anatomy and physiology of existing species, he found that they fit very nicely into a "nested heirarchy." Essentially, the familiar "Tree of Life." The heirarchy was refined greatly after Linnaeus, but the concept remained the same (and so often, you still see the familiar "L." after a species name, indicating that it was first described and classified by Linnaeus). Later, evolutionary theory explained why we see these patterns: organisms fit into something resembling a "family tree" because they are actually related, and share a common ancestry.

Then, around a century later, DNA was identified and described, and slowly we gained the ability to examine how well the heirarchies (phylogenies) created using genetic evidence corresponded with the phylogenies that were built based on morphology. And guess what - it matched amazingly well. Even when looking at genes that had nothing to do with the morphology of the creatures - genes that might not code proteins at all, or broken genes that no longer function - the similarity between species corresponded with their relatedness according to the nested heirarchy.

Converging lines of evidence. Genetics and morphology of living species. The chronological progression, along with transitional forms, seen in the fossil record. Past and present biogeography. It all lines up with evolutionary theory - not surprising, because evolutionary theory was first formed and has since been constantly revised and updated based on the evidence.

Again, that theory has nothing to do with how the sock came to be. Evolution isn't about what currently is... but how what is got here.

Wrong: it's about both current living things, AND how they came to be the way they are from the first living things. Evolutionary theory informs all fields of modern biology. I'm an ecologist, so I don't study evolution per se - but I constantly use my understanding of evolution to interpret observations and make predictions. It's a valuable tool that works exceedingly well.

what No sane person has a problem with observable evolution (microevolution, selectively passing along traits which are already there, which is how lap dogs came into existance).

Excellent. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes. According to the scientific definition, macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. Since speciation has been observed, so has macroevolution. Creationists used to say that speciation is impossible (some of the more out-of-date ones still say this). Since that point has been trumped so many times, many now rely on undefined and untestable concepts such as "kinds."

yep... it's silly to call any evolutionist closed minded. They would never say something like "there's only one way of explaining (enter his opinion here). And it's infallable. Any evidence against it is proven wrong by the fact that such an observation disagrees with my speculation."

If someone said that, they certainly wouldn't be speaking from the perspective of evolutionary biology, nor even of science. I'm sure if you could find contradictory evidence and/or an explanation that better fits the evidence, FishFace would love to hear about it. As would I! But evolutionary theory is so well-supported by the evidence at this point that it is highly unlikely.

 

[The Gregorian]

(by the way, I just spent the last 3 hours in the sun tearing up a deck for a friend who just moved into a rather fixer-upper house... please pardon any abnormal spelling errors for while)

he means that evolution is not about how life started, but about how species became so varied.

Aye... evolution: the theory of the formation of the species. That means how the different species came to be. Is that fair to say?

How one species changes into another, and how each species formed from it's predecessor? If you say "we know for an absolute fact, dogs came from mice, which came from amphibians which came from fish, which came from crustacians, which came from bacteria" ... but you have no idea where the bacteria came from... you have an incomplete theory. If you're breaking down where we come from, you have to go back to the beginning.

Well... you don't "have" to... it's an entertaining theory even if it's incomplete. It posses some interesting suggestions... but it is no where NEAR having been proven. We have no evidence of non mammalian organisms breeding into a mammal... beyond "we're here... so we assume we came from... fishes.... which came from bacteria... which came from rocks. i.e. we are all direct decedents of inanimate objects.

... which... is actually pretty cool. My great x10^100000 grandpa may have been the universal singularity from which the big bang originated. Makes me feel kind of powerful. Unfortunately I'm using my cousin as a table and the other one was solidified to form the plastic in my keyboard.

again, evolution aims to explain species variation, NOT abiogenesis, the origin of life. And "speculation" means that you are assuming without evidence. There is much evidence that backs evolution. Evolution does not speculate, but draws conclusions from evidence.

Yes... that's what I said. Evolution is an incomplete theory describing how we came from monkies and monkies came from rats, etc. But we have no idea how it started... but that doesn't really matter. Plus, we completely skip over the fact that we don't really have any evidence other than the probability that over hundreds of billions of years... it 'could' happen through random mutation. Sounds concrete to me.

So evolution doesn't speculate? What evidence do we have that it is possible for a non-mammalian creature to be bread until it is mammalian? When has this ever been observed? Beyond the fact that there are mammals and they must have come from somewhere, so they must have been born from whatever evolved into us... using the assumption that evolution is correct to support itself?

if u took the time to understand the painstakingly detailed process that goes into scientific research, u'd see that nothing about evolution is a wild guess.

Fortunately I have. I've read every book I can get on the topic, I've talked to highschool and college professors from across the country, I've discussed the topic with hundreds of people like you... heck... I've even watched a special or two on the discovery channel.

Evolution can be disproved. If you ever find a winged horse, you have disproved evolution.

Better than a winged horse: The european green woodpecker. The bombardier beetle. The platypus. etc.

 

[The Gregorian]

yes but he has got reputable sources and they are all true. Have you acctually seen his seminars?

1: Thanks for piping up... kinda gets boring being the only one on this side of the arguement. heh

But yea... unlike -some- people, my side of the argument is based off logic. Not what "the scientists said" 150 years ago. Quite a few claims were made by scientists in the pasts... many were right... many were wrong. The best way to tell the right ones from the wrong ones: If evidence against something is accepted as possible... the theory is likely based on actual evidence. If evidence against the theory is immediately dismissed simply because it is against your pre-conceived notion... said notion is illconceived anyway.

Gravity, for example: Newton had a good idea... Einstein disagreed with Newton's formulas and updated the theory of gravity. I.e. that theory is still held by open minds... updates are possible.

Evolution: "Is a fact and all scientists agree with it because if you agree anything other than evolution, you are not a scientist." Screams to be examined to me.

The fact that it's impossible to even call evolution a "theory" shows how paranoid people are of actually learning it's cons with it's pros.

The theory is held as infallible. That's been proven during this discussion. Anything infallible is not science. That's religion. It should either be taken out of schools like other religions, or it should be suggested as a theory similar to the theory of a creation. Both are leaps of faith. There is evidence for and against both. I can admit that. So far none of the evolutionists can even grasp the concept that their religion may be fallible.

Paying attention is far more important. Evolution explains
what happens to life after it already exists. Does the theory of Gravitation suddenly fail because it doesn't explain how gravity was created? Honestly dude this stuff is 5th grade material and you're 22.

Aye... I paid attention, and I had the presence of mind to recognize when people were shoving their assumptions down my throat as though it were fact.

If evolution is more than a guess... where can I find some [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] evidence? Who has observed a non-mammal be bread until it has produced a mammal? Who has given any explanation for this beyond "It could happen over billions and billions of years."

"It could happen" is... not... evidence.

There could be aliens. There probably are somewhere... that is not hard evidence for them. The guess is valid... some may believe in aliens and others may not.

 

[Dannager]

Aye... evolution: the theory of the formation of the species. That means how the different species came to be. Is that fair to say?

Yes, but unfortunately you're drawing that out far further than science necessitates. I'll explain.

How one species changes into another, and how each species formed from it's predecessor? If you say "we know for an absolute fact, dogs came from mice, which came from amphibians which came from fish, which came from crustacians, which came from bacteria" ... but you have no idea where the bacteria came from... you have an incomplete theory. If you're breaking down where we come from, you have to go back to the beginning.

No, you don't, at all. In fact, if you did you would be violating the bounds of the theory. It would no longer be a theory of biological evolution. It would be a theory of biological evolution and the creation of life. That's not what evolution is. Your demand for a theory stretching back to the beginning is like claiming that the theory of plate tectonics is invalid unless we understand how the solar system formed. You can develop a theory within its bounds.

Well... you don't "have" to... it's an entertaining theory even if it's incomplete. It posses some interesting suggestions... but it is no where NEAR having been proven.

That's because theories don't get proven. Ever. Theories always stay theories. Some get disproved, but never the other way around. They become strongly-evidenced, which means that the theory is a good one (and, by the way, evolutionary theory is incredibly strongly-evidenced).

We have no evidence of non mammalian organisms breeding into a mammal... beyond "we're here... so we assume we came from... fishes.... which came from bacteria... which came from rocks. i.e. we are all direct decedents of inanimate objects.

That's not the line of reasoning at all, and I'm sure you know that. Please don't be disingenuous. We have direct observational evidence of speciation, and we know that mutations can accumulate and lead to greater change. We can trace individual traits' development back through the fossil record, indicating a clear progression of change over time in populations.

... which... is actually pretty cool. My great x10^100000 grandpa may have been the universal singularity from which the big bang originated. Makes me feel kind of powerful. Unfortunately I'm using my cousin as a table and the other one was solidified to form the plastic in my keyboard.

I can't even begin to address this.

Yes... that's what I said. Evolution is an incomplete theory describing how we came from monkies and monkies came from rats, etc. But we have no idea how it started... but that doesn't really matter.

That's right, it doesn't matter. And evolutionary theory isn't any more incomplete than the theory of gravitation is, or germ theory is. But you don't reject either of those.

Plus, we completely skip over the fact that we don't really have any evidence other than the probability that over hundreds of billions of years... it 'could' happen through random mutation. Sounds concrete to me.

That's nonsense. We have tons of evidence from multiple disciplines. More evidence than you could hope to fully understand in a lifetime. Entire scientific disciplines are dedicated to evolutionary biology, so much is there to study.

So evolution doesn't speculate?

Not any more than any other scientific field, and you don't object to the others.

What evidence do we have that it is possible for a non-mammalian creature to be bread until it is mammalian?

See: fossil record, ERVs, etc...

When has this ever been observed?

Who cares? It doesn't need to have been directly observed. We observe it having happened through the fossil record and every other method of scientific study we employ.

Beyond the fact that there are mammals and they must have come from somewhere, so they must have been born from whatever evolved into us... using the assumption that evolution is correct to support itself?

That's not how it works, and that's been explained to you. Are you actually interested in learning about how evolution works? You have some pretty serious misconceptions about it, and we can help you correct them, but you have to be willing to learn instead of arguing just for the sake of disagreeing.

Fortunately I have. I've read every book I can get on the topic, I've talked to highschool and college professors from across the country, I've discussed the topic with hundreds of people like you... heck... I've even watched a special or two on the discovery channel.

And you still don't know the basic tenets of scientific study (for instance, that theories can't get proven, and what the requirements are for an observation to be valid). Seriously, it doesn't matter how much study you've done on your own, you still haven't gotten it.

Better than a winged horse: The european green woodpecker. The bombardier beetle. The platypus. etc.

Haha, actually, the evolution of the platypus is something that I've taken a look at before. It's pretty well understood. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#In_mammalian_evolution to read up on it.

 

[The Gregorian]

In the relatively few cases where he cites reputable sources, they don't actually support his conclusions.

I have. They're quite entertaining. He's embarrassing even to other creationists (many of his arguments are on AiG's "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"). This is a guy who not only claims that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, he claims, "Many scientists theorize that T-rex probably breathed fire."

Crocodiles and the like. Many sharks. Any of the alleged nessy beasts.

Unless "Dinosaur" is only defined as having not existed while humans existed.

Not to mention the fact that he took at face value a claim on a random web page that showed an obviously fake fossil of a T-rex eating a human, then cited it as proof of the fact that dinosaurs and humans co-existing. He didn't even bother to check the authenticity of the claim before he declared it fact in front of probably thousands of people.

similar to the admittedly faked fossils given to certain magazines. Said fossels were exposed as hoaxes, yet still cited as proof for evolution in later text books?

 

[Belfry]

This is a guy who not only claims that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, he claims, "Many scientists theorize that T-rex probably breathed fire."

Crocodiles and the like. Many sharks. Any of the alleged nessy beasts.

Unless "Dinosaur" is only defined as having not existed while humans existed.

Not at all, and in fact birds are considered to be theropod dinosaurs. Not sharks, though, and not crocodilians, although examples from both of these groups were around when non-avian dinosaurs were prevalent. As far as nessy goes - well, of course it is highly dubious that she and similar legends are real, but supposedly they would be plesiosaurs, which were also not dinosaurs.

In any case, you're quite right, I misspoke - it's not coexistence with humans itself that is absurd, but that he thinks humans were always present, for as long as all of the dinosaurs in the fossil record were around. After the 6th day, that is. In addition to the "probably breathed fire" thing, he also says that if a T. rex attacked a human, the human could easily defeat him by pulling off one of his weakly-attached arms, after which the dino would bleed to death. Seriously!

similar to the admittedly faked fossils given to certain magazines. Said fossels were exposed as hoaxes, yet still cited as proof for evolution in later text books?

Such as?

 

[Yggdrasil]

Hovind has been spanked sooooo many times by REAL scientists its almost hard to watch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wglbviUuXjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4

 

[The Gregorian]

Yes, but unfortunately you're drawing that out far further than science necessitates. I'll explain.

Kind of like darwin when he saw a few varieties of finch and rationally decided they likely came from the same finch ancestor... then assumed because of that, they came from the same ancestor as grapes? Isn't that a bit more of a step?

What fossil records do we have of the evolution of the grape or pumpkin or corn? We can cross breed corn all over the place... but a corn stalk has never grown anything other than corn. Want to prove evolution? Find me a corn stalk that grows apples, then I'll be impressed. Find a corn stalk that grows european green woodpeckers and I'll even admit you're right.

Your demand for a theory stretching back to the beginning is like claiming that the theory of plate tectonics is invalid unless we understand how the solar system formed. You can develop a theory within its bounds.

Good point... but I disagree. It would be like asking how plate tectonics worked and requiring an explanation or at least a guess on how the -earth- formed.

Similarly, if you claim that Man evolved from fish... you're going to have to tell me where those fish came from... to the beginning of fish. You don't need to tell me where the water the fish lived in came from... although that is a good question. The big bang theory is very close to evolution.... "One day, there was aboslutely nothing, and for no reason POOF, it was the whole universe. But there could not be any outside source for the nothing to turn into everything, because a reason for the poof to happen is unreasonable."

That's because theories don't get proven. Ever. Theories always stay theories. Some get disproved, but never the other way around. They become strongly-evidenced, which means that the theory is a good one (and, by the way, evolutionary theory is incredibly strongly-evidenced).

Well, you're one of the few to admit that evolution is a theory. Congrats. All I wish for is that science teachers present the theory as you said... a theory. One that many scientists hold faith in. But nothing more than a theory.

That's not the line of reasoning at all, and I'm sure you know that. Please don't be disingenuous. We have direct observational evidence of speciation, and we know that mutations can accumulate

Is it not? You subscribe to evolution, do you not? You come from a monkey that came from a rat that came from an amphibian that came from a fish that came from a li'l bitty fish that came from a multicellular organism that came from a single cellular sexual organism which was born from a that came from a single cellular asexual organism which came from a veriety of inanimate chemical reactions which came from chemicals which came from chunks of rocks floating around in space.

As much as you avoid the question of "Where did it start"... it will still be asked. At what point is the above paragraph wrong? (of course, there are billions of years of random cumulative mutations between each of the stages)

That's right, it doesn't matter. And evolutionary theory isn't any more incomplete than the theory of gravitation is, or germ theory is. But you don't reject either of those.

eherm... gravity can be observed. Germs can be observed. cumulative mutation changing the offspring, even over a long period of time, from one kingdom of life to another has never been observed. Fossils have been found and assumptions have been made, but we can't even tell how old said fossils are without such flawed processes as carbon dating... of course every time an object of known age is carbon dated... the result is off by astronomical percentages.... but when an object of unknown origins is presented, carbon dating is a precision science that is never mistaken. (note: two leg bones from the SAME mammoth have been dated... what? 20,000 years apart from eachother?)

That's nonsense. We have tons of evidence from multiple disciplines. More evidence than you could hope to fully understand in a lifetime. Entire scientific disciplines are dedicated to evolutionary biology, so much is there to study.

I suppose that's why it's so well defended... people have high paying jobs, likely supported by my tax dollars to sit on their butts and make stuff up.

But will anyone ever explain the european green woodpecker?

Who cares? It doesn't need to have been directly observed. We observe it having happened through the fossil record and every other method of scientific study we employ.

The fossil records are your best proof? Carbon dating and reference layers?

Are you actually interested in learning about how evolution works? You have some pretty serious misconceptions about it, and we can help you correct them, but you have to be willing to learn instead of arguing just for the sake of disagreeing.

sure. mr. teacher... I have the misconception that the shells of -still living- mollusks and snails have been carbon dated at tens of thousands of years old and that two bones from the same mammoth have been dated thousands of years apart... Why should I still trust carbon dating?