Intelligent Design - can it even be called science? (*moved thread*)

[Papias]

Sophrosyne wrote:

I have seen the so called transitional fossils and they are like force fitting pieces into a biased jigsaw puzzle.

Cool! It’s great to hear that you are familiar with the many transitional series of fossils. I have seen many, but of the hundreds that exist, I admit I've only seen a small fraction - though I do have a replica of the famous Archeopteryx specimen haning in the living room. To help us all learn, maybe you’d like to describe some of the fossils and their features that scientists agree are transitional? As you know, some of the transitions where there are good fossil transitions are:

• Worm – like creatures to fish
• Fish to amphibians
• Amphibians to reptiles
• Lizards to mammals
• Lizards to birds
• Lizards to turtles
• Earlier mammals to rodents
• Earlier mammals to Horses
• Earlier mammals to whales
• Earlier mammals to elephants
• Chimp-like Ancestors to humans (oh, I see Mallon has already posted an image of just some of those)

Or, if you want to pick other transitions, those are around too. You may want to start a new thread, but if not, then discuss your choice in this thread seems like it would work fine too.

It is not conclusive

So you are saying you reject hundreds of clearly transitional fossils, that hundreds of scientists have examined, and concluded that they were clearly transitional, instead going on your limited and non-professional judgement? The scientific consensus can't be blamed entirely on "biased scientistis" because other creationists have agreed that many of these fossil transitions show the evolution of one animal into another, including the evolution of the horse (such as answers in Genesis). I’m sorry, but your statement sounds an awful lot like a person who has hundreds of doctors diagnose him, and they agree on the diagnosis, and the patient still maintains he doesn’t have that diagnoses, because… because…, well, based on what?

Fourth, you said "stopped". Could you explain? There has been a ton of evolution since then. After all, there were no mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians or even fish in the Cambrian explosion, all of those have evolved since then.

there is no proof anything has evolved upwards that I have seen.

OK, back then, we had no mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians or even fish – and hardly anything one could call a complex brain. Today, these animals do exist (with brains). Is that not a significant change, one towards increased complexity?

by admission evolutionist have had to force fit ideas to explain the explosion and because of bias any lame idea is accepted.

OK, that’s a claim. Do you have evidence for it? Can you give an example of a lame idea (I’ll take that to mean one without evidence) that is accepted because of bias?

but when something like the cambrian explosion happens they adjust their figures and make excuses for the contradiction.

OK, that’s a claim. Do you have evidence for it? Can you give an example of scientists “adjusting their figures and making excuses for the contradiction”? Oh, and what contradiction do you mean? There is nothing in the Cambrian explosion that contradicts evolution.

With a larger population of species I would expect the *explosion* to continue on with even greater force creation newer even more complex species but we get nothing. Evolution has fizzled out only producing one new complex species according to it... man.

Um, are you saying that there are no new species except those that existed in the Cambrian? That’s easily testable. Just go to any zoo, or look out the window. All the animals you see did not exist in the Cambrian, but have evolved since then. Can you name even one species around today that was around in the Cambrian?

Previous numbered points:
1:

no, you agree DNA is, I agree it is designed to encourage birds to change in order to adapt to their environment but they will still be birds, fish to change to survive but they will always be fish so evolution if you want to use that word loosely isn't full blown but limited by DNA

How does DNA do this? What stops micro evolution from accumulating to make the macroevolution that we see happening? You’ve stated that several times but have not offered any evidence. Your 4 legged humans suggests that you want a striking example of DNA allowing one organism to evolve into a noticeably different organism. How about the Cambrian explosion example – very tiny creatures from the Cambrian have evolved into the blue whale, elephants, and humans. That’s even more change than your human with extra legs. I guess I’ll consider this one closed as you just stated that you don’t understand DNA anyway. If we agree this one is closed because you don’t understand DNA, then is it fair to request that you stop claiming that DNA has some barrier to evolution?

2. Sideways? You mean “not more complex”, right? There is plenty of evidence of increased complexity and new information. Wall lizards have evolved a new feature with people watching, and so that is more complex. You do understand that “species” is not a hard and fast category, but that ring and area type species (along with transitions over time) show that species are changeable, right?

3. everything else breaks down to simpler levels

Do you understand that the 2nd law – that everything breaks down – only applies to a closed system without new energy being added? The earth is not a closed system – we receive millions of joules of energy everyday from the sun. If there were no sun, no radioactivity, and no store of chemical energy, you (and other creationists who claim the 2nd law) would be right. You are aware that the sun exists, right?

4. Regardless of what scientists may or may not have said, are you, Sophrosyne, aware that some environments have changed quickly, and some more slowly? If evolution were a response to the environment, would you not expect it to move more quickly sometimes and more slowly other times?

5. – (from above) Does Sophrosyne accept at least the transitional fossils that other creationists, such as the huge “Answers in Genesis” have accepted? Or are you saying that these creationists are wrong?

6. – (from above) You are aware that the animals around today were not around in the Cambrian, right?


7. – (from above) Waiting for evidence that scientists have admitted to accepting “lame” ideas.

8. – (from above) Waiting for evidence that scientists have adjusted data to fit the “contradiction” of the Cambrian explosion.



Thanks for the response, and I’m sorry about any places where I come across as annoyed or cross.

Papias

 

[marlowe007]

Perhaps. They had some ideas right and some wrong (like Aristotle’s version of Newton’s 1st law of motion). However, when looking at their views, it is important to keep their world in mind – none of them had the ability to compare the present or past evidence with Darwin’s idea, so saying they are ID proponents is kind like saying that they favored walking over riding in an airplane, because they never rode in an airplane, and walked often.

Your argument proceeds from the idea that most people have - that it was Darwin, in 1859, who put the sudden smack-down on the idea of Special Creation. That prior to that, nobody had ever conceived of biological evolution.

Granted, Darwin came up with the popular mechanism, but he was hardly the first guy to suggest a mutable nature of species. The idea that species could change over time was an accepted fact among some of the Ancient Philosophers. You had Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander (the first to actually suggest man was descended from fish, in the sixth century BC), Thales of Miletus, and others.

You seem to suggest that Cicero et al. had no other alternative than supernatural creation. But there were naturalistic alternatives back then, such as Stoicism, Epicureanism and other philosophies and scientific schools of thought which supported the notion of biological evolution.

 

[Papias]

Marlowe wrote:

Your argument proceeds from the idea that most people have - that it was Darwin, in 1859, who put the sudden smack-down on the idea of Special Creation. That prior to that, nobody had ever conceived of biological evolution.

Granted, Darwin came up with the popular mechanism, but he was hardly the first guy to suggest a mutable nature of species. The idea that species could change over time was an accepted fact among some of the Ancient Philosophers. You had Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander (the first to actually suggest man was descended from fish, in the sixth century BC), Thales of Miletus, and others.

You seem to suggest that Cicero et al. had no other alternative than supernatural creation. But there were naturalistic alternatives back then, such as Stoicism, Epicureanism and other philosophies and scientific schools of thought which supported the notion of biological evolution.

Yes, there were those who brought up the idea – thanks for reminding me, and especially for supplying more names than I could have come up with.

However, the idea I was referring to was not just “evolution”, but rather a plausible mechanism (natural selection), which is what Darwin supplied, which hadn’t been present before, along witht the evidence that has only been around for less than 150 years. I agree that evolution was present long before as your examples show, and as was also supplied by the idea of Lamarckian evolution.

Even with Darwin’s idea of natural selection acting on variation – I can still see it being reasonable to be skeptical in say, 1870. After all, mendelian genetics wasn’t available yet (hence the mixing problem for any mutation), and the huge amounts of evidence for evolution wasn’t available yet either (many more fossils have been found since 1870 than all those before 1870), not to mention all the other confirming evidence, like DNA studies, molecular biology, and so on.

So if Plato were around in 1870, I can see him rejecting Darwinian evolution. But not since the modern synthesis, and much less today. Any honest and informed person (creationist or not) will agree that there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution today (for a creationist example, see the blog mallon found). Plato in, say, 1920 or since would be a fool to reject evolution, and so talking about them as “ID supporters” still suffers from the same problem as saying that they favored walking over riding in an airplane.

Have a great day, and thanks for responding.

Papias


P. S. What did you think about the "interlocking complexity" of Mullen?

 

[marlowe007]

Yes, there were those who brought up the idea – thanks for reminding me, and especially for supplying more names than I could have come up with.

However, the idea I was referring to was not just “evolution”, but rather a plausible mechanism (natural selection), which is what Darwin supplied, which hadn’t been present before, along witht the evidence that has only been around for less than 150 years. I agree that evolution was present long before as your examples show, and as was also supplied by the idea of Lamarckian evolution.

Even with Darwin’s idea of natural selection acting on variation – I can still see it being reasonable to be skeptical in say, 1870. After all, mendelian genetics wasn’t available yet (hence the mixing problem for any mutation), and the huge amounts of evidence for evolution wasn’t available yet either (many more fossils have been found since 1870 than all those before 1870), not to mention all the other confirming evidence, like DNA studies, molecular biology, and so on.

So if Plato were around in 1870, I can see him rejecting Darwinian evolution. But not since the modern synthesis, and much less today. Any honest and informed person (creationist or not) will agree that there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution today (for a creationist example, see the blog mallon found). Plato in, say, 1920 or since would be a fool to reject evolution, and so talking about them as “ID supporters” still suffers from the same problem as saying that they favored walking over riding in an airplane.

Have a great day, and thanks for responding.

Papias


P. S. What did you think about the "interlocking complexity" of Mullen?

Fair enough....I agree with everything you've said here, except the part concerning Mendelian genetics, which I think was/is more of a hindrance than an asset to the Darwinian mechanism. Both Alfred Wallace and Mendel himself thought so, anyway.

As for Mullen and his "interlocking complexity", I don't consider myself informed or authoritative enough to form an opinion about it....

 

[Sophrosyne]

With respect, you don't. That's why people here with education far beyond your high-school level training in evolution are patiently trying to correct your misconceptions. Unfortunately, you evidently don't value education, preferring to call it "indoctrination" instead ("brainwashing" is another common creationist refrain). With that attitude, I'm not really sure if it's worth anyone's time trying to speak to you if you're intent on not learning from one another.

I was at one time studying to be an electrical engineer. I am not uneducated. I can see the coding in DNA and I say it is designed that way or engineered based upon my education. I have an attitude to those that blindly accept evolution and study intensely everything believing it because they are brainwashed to throw out logic and doubt it.

I'm not sure which "false pictures" you're referring to (does it have to do with linear vs. cladogenic evolution?), but I thought that I should point out that YEC baraminologist Todd Wood feels the evidence for horse evolution is strong. Check out his blog post here:
Todd's Blog: The horse series and creationism

would you take a blog as proof for ID being true? I doubt it. Why would you expect me to read one?

You've been given lots of evidence so far, but rather than explaining it, you've only explained it away.

If you know a story is science fiction and impossible in real life why do you need to read the story? Scientists deny miracles that have been reported by people with education while they claim evolution does this and that without even a witness to such miracles of hopping from lower evolved species to higher evolved ones:
here is something to ponder:
You have a quintillion 6 month old babies that will never age, never get smarter or dumber and never need sustenance. You give them every type of raw material in the universe and a quintillion years and jump in your time machine. Now... as a scientist what would you expect to find if the babies do not evolve but stay the same what do you think they would build in a quintillion years? A supercomputer, right? how about the empire state building? maybe something simple like an airplane or car? Would you bet your life they would build a simple computer? I would bet you would not.
Now, evolution starts with less that 6 month old babies, in fact no intelligence whatsoever and says it can make things that even the most smartest man on earth cannot comprehend in a lifetime with a tiny fraction of the amount of time. The logic isn't there to start with because we as intelligent humans are unable to build things anywhere near as complex as the human brain and are still trying to completely understand how DNA works. Be skeptical and stop believing everything you are taught.

 

[gluadys]

Fair enough....I agree with everything you've said here, except the part concerning Mendelian genetics, which I think was/is more of a hindrance than an asset to the Darwinian mechanism. Both Alfred Wallace and Mendel himself thought so, anyway.

As for Mullen and his "interlocking complexity", I don't consider myself informed or authoritative enough to form an opinion about it....

Since maintaining a classic Mendelian balance requires strict controls not found in nature, why would you see it as a problem for evolution? Any or all of the following can change a Mendelian balance of alleles:

assortative mating (in sexually reproducing species)
a predator, disease or parasite that has selective effects
chromosomal linkage of genes
differential favoring of traits in differing localities
restriction/blockage of gene flow from one population to another


I am sure there are other factors as well which have effects on the distribution of alleles in any population.

Mendel did not observe such effects in his experiments because he controlled pollination, he excluded plants that were unhealthy, by sheer luck he examined traits which were largely controlled by single genes on different chromosomes, and he worked in one locality where he maintained fairly constant ecological conditions.

 

[marlowe007]

Since maintaining a classic Mendelian balance requires strict controls not found in nature, why would you see it as a problem for evolution?

Alfred Wallace said: "But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions."

 

[Mallon]

I was at one time studying to be an electrical engineer. I am not uneducated.

I don't doubt for a minute that you are educated. But you are not formally educated in the natural sciences and, quite frankly, it shows. Again, if you won't accept the criticism coming from an evolutionary creationist, take it from a fellow YEC:

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

Or just go on thinking you know more than everyone with a formal degree in the natural sciences. I don't care.

I can see the coding in DNA and I say it is designed that way or engineered based upon my education.

I agree that DNA is designed. Design doesn't preclude evolution, however. The first posits agency, the second posits mechanism. They are two different things.

I have an attitude to those that blindly accept evolution and study intensely everything believing it because they are brainwashed to throw out logic and doubt it.

This comment gave me pause for thought. It's not the first time I've heard a YEC say evolution is illogical. But then I remember hearing YECs at other times denounce human logic, usually citing passages like 1 Cor 1:25. Interesting contradiction.

Be skeptical and stop believing everything you are taught.

Is your aversion to education the reason why you dropped out of engineering school?
(Incidentally, I am highly skeptical of your loose analogies.)

 

[gluadys]

Alfred Wallace said: "But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions."

So?

Wallace died in 1913. He knew nothing of the structure or plasticity of genes. He (like Mendel) mistakenly thought of genes as indivisible and unchangeable units. He was wrong. Mendelian characters are transmitted WITH variation.

 

[Papias]

Marlowe wrote:

Alfred Wallace said:

Hey, I have to say - what a concise and accurate answer to the question of what Wallace found wrong with MG. No evasion, no hand waving, and from the quote, it's clear that he did have a problem with it.

Perhaps I can keep us from becoming sidetracked by showing the problem that medelian genetics solved.

Someone (I don't remember who) pointed out in the late 1800's that evolution driven by mutations would have a problem among sexual creatures due to the blending hypothesis of inheritence. Many biologists back then thought that inheritence was governed by "blending" the traits of the two parents.

So if you had a brown cow and and a white cow as parents, a tan cow resulted, just as if you mixed a can of brown paint with a can of white paint. This is seen in some cases, which appeared to support the idea.

So say a rabbit has a beneficial mutation that allows it to run faster. Even if it is selected for, it's kids (though there are more of them) will still only run half as much faster (due to blending). Still some advantage, but 1/4 in the next generation, and soon any benefit is swamped out by blending. Blending inheritance evolution can work, but late 1800's biologists realized that it required a relatively high rate of mutation, and there was (correct) doubt that the mutation rate was or had been that high.

Mendelian genetics solved this problem by showing that some offspring would get the entire benefit of the mutation, while others (which would be selected against, and not reproduce) would get none of it. So no loss occurs, and a lower mutation rate will still give evolution.

As for whether or not Wallace's objection is a real problem, that's something we can discuss. I think that the points raised by Gluadys solve a lot of Wallace's objections, and the fact that by the early 1900's few biologists thought that any of Wallace's objections posed a serious problem shows that others thought (and still think) so too.

After all, Wallace was only going on a very limited subset of the genetics experiments that have been done since 1850, and a very limited understanding of mendelian genetics, compared to what geneticists know today.

Papias

 

[Sophrosyne]

I don't doubt for a minute that you are educated. But you are not formally educated in the natural sciences and, quite frankly, it shows. Again, if you won't accept the criticism coming from an evolutionary creationist, take it from a fellow YEC:

evolutionary creationist is an oxymoron, I could see adaptation as a design characteristic of a creator but not creating mankind that way which is in the end what evolution teaches, man comes all the way from dead life.

Or just go on thinking you know more than everyone with a formal degree in the natural sciences. I don't care.

sure you care else you wouldnt make such comments that I know it all.

I agree that DNA is designed. Design doesn't preclude evolution, however. The first posits agency, the second posits mechanism. They are two different things.

You agree DNA is designed but do you agree DNA was designed by evolution or by someone smarter than a process that the brains of which is dead matter?

This comment gave me pause for thought. It's not the first time I've heard a YEC say evolution is illogical. But then I remember hearing YECs at other times denounce human logic, usually citing passages like 1 Cor 1:25. Interesting contradiction.

I don't need to use the bible to point out the science fiction logic in evolution. Nobody in their right mind would bet their life that a dead planet could in even an infinite amount of time produce humans. I would bet all evolutionist lie to themselves that they would until they stand in front of a firing squad and really confront if it is just wanting to be with the *smart* crowd of scientists or do they see how impossible it truly is?

Is your aversion to education the reason why you dropped out of engineering school?
(Incidentally, I am highly skeptical of your loose analogies.)

I figured you would reject my analogies and it is sad you would stoop to using my lack of perceived education as an excuse for it.

 

[sfs]

So?

Wallace died in 1913. He knew nothing of the structure or plasticity of genes. He (like Mendel) mistakenly thought of genes as indivisible and unchangeable units. He was wrong. Mendelian characters are transmitted WITH variation.

This was, in fact, the entire point of the Neodarwinian Synthesis, which was developed during the 1930s and 1940s. It provided a rigorous, mathematical understanding of how evolution is consistent with, and actually depends upon, Mendelian genetics.

 

[sfs]

I don't need to use the bible to point out the science fiction logic in evolution.

But you haven't pointed out any actual flaws in evolution. You obviously know little about the evidence for evolution and aren't interested in learning about it.

Nobody in their right mind would bet their life that a dead planet could in even an infinite amount of time produce humans. I would bet all evolutionist lie to themselves that they would until they stand in front of a firing squad and really confront if it is just wanting to be with the *smart* crowd of scientists or do they see how impossible it truly is?

What does betting one's life have to do with anything? Biologists accept evolution as an accurate model for how life has changed because it works so well. It explains and predicts a vast range of data, and no other model makes even a half-hearted attempt to do so. We're going to keep accepting it until someone comes up with a model that does a better job with the data. Yelling at us that evolution is impossible (when you obviously haven't bothered to learn even the basics about the subject) and insulting us certainly isn't going to do the trick.

 

[Mallon]

evolutionary creationist is an oxymoron, I could see adaptation as a design characteristic of a creator but not creating mankind that way which is in the end what evolution teaches, man comes all the way from dead life.

"Dead life". Speaking of oxymorons...
So is your problem with evolution, then, that man was ultimately created from non-living matter? Because the Bible teaches that, too (man was created from dust). Honestly, there's nothing oxymoronic about evolutionary creation. That God used natural processes to bring about biodiversity is no different than the idea that He used natural reproductive and developmental processes to bring about you and I.

You agree DNA is designed but do you agree DNA was designed by evolution or by someone smarter than a process that the brains of which is dead matter?

I believe God designed DNA and then used an evolutionary process to fulfill that design. Again, agency and mechanism are two different things. You're conflating your terms, here.

I figured you would reject my analogies and it is sad you would stoop to using my lack of perceived education as an excuse for it.

I don't reject your analogies because you lack an education. I reject your analogies because they are wrong (as a result of your lack of education). Your whole understanding of evolution is wrong, as evidenced by your belief that individuals evolve, that "devolution" exists, or that organisms can evolve "beyond" their ancestry. These are serious misconceptions, and I can't take your arguments seriously if you clearly have not even a basic understanding of the topic you're trying to discuss. If I told you that 1 + 2 = 7, would you take me seriously as a mathematician?

 

[Papias]

sfs - did you see my post #90, which describes an aspect of mendelian genetics addressed by the modern synthesis? This may resolve the discussion over mendelian genetics.


Sophrosyne - did you miss my last post in our discussion? I thought that might have happened because you've posted on here several times but haven't responded to that post (it was post # 81). Here they are for your convenience:

Previous numbered points:
1:
Sophrosyne wrote:

no, you agree DNA is, I agree it is designed to encourage birds to change in order to adapt to their environment but they will still be birds, fish to change to survive but they will always be fish so evolution if you want to use that word loosely isn't full blown but limited by DNA

How does DNA do this? What stops micro evolution from accumulating to make the macroevolution that we see happening? You’ve stated that several times but have not offered any evidence. Your 4 legged humans suggests that you want a striking example of DNA allowing one organism to evolve into a noticeably different organism. How about the Cambrian explosion example – very tiny creatures from the Cambrian have evolved into the blue whale, elephants, and humans. That’s even more change than your human with extra legs.

I guess I’ll consider this one closed as you just stated that you don’t understand DNA anyway. If we agree this one is closed because you don’t understand DNA, then is it fair to request that you stop claiming that DNA has some barrier to evolution?

2. Sideways? You mean “not more complex”, right? There is plenty of evidence of increased complexity and new information. Wall lizards have evolved a new feature with people watching, and so that is more complex. You do understand that “species” is not a hard and fast category, but that ring and area type species (along with transitions over time) show that species are changeable, right?
3. Sophrosyne wrote:

everything else breaks down to simpler levels

Do you understand that the 2nd law – that everything breaks down – only applies to a closed system without new energy being added? The earth is not a closed system – we receive millions of joules of energy everyday from the sun. If there were no sun, no radioactivity, and no store of chemical energy, you (and other creationists who claim the 2nd law) would be right. You are aware that the sun exists, right?

4. Regardless of what scientists may or may not have said, are you, Sophrosyne, aware that some environments have changed quickly, and some more slowly? If evolution were a response to the environment, would you not expect it to move more quickly sometimes and more slowly other times?

5. – (from above) Does Sophrosyne accept at least the transitional fossils that other creationists, such as the huge “Answers in Genesis” have accepted? Or are you saying that these creationists are wrong?

6. – (from above) You are aware that the animals around today were not around in the Cambrian, right?


7. – (from above) Waiting for evidence that scientists have admitted to accepting “lame” ideas.

8. – (from above) Waiting for evidence that scientists have adjusted data to fit the “contradiction” of the Cambrian explosion.



Thanks for the response, and I’m sorry about any places where I come across as annoyed or cross.

Papias

+ #9. Waiting for Sophrosyne to pick some of the transitional fossils from the series listed in post #81 and describe the transitional features in them - this should be easy because Sophrosyne has studied them and is familiar with them.

Thanks!

Papias

 

[sfs]

sfs - did you see my post #90, which describes an aspect of mendelian genetics addressed by the modern synthesis? This may resolve the discussion over mendelian genetics.

No, I didn't see it before writing my post. Nice summary. (The guy who pointed out the problem with blending inheritance, by the way, was Fleeming Jenkin. Great name.)

 

[Sophrosyne]

But you haven't pointed out any actual flaws in evolution. You obviously know little about the evidence for evolution and aren't interested in learning about it.

the logic of evolution is its greatest flaw
I know enough about it to realize through the wording of the propaganda used to explain the holes in it that scientists are grasping at straws. I have read enough articles from pro evolutionists to see how they jump and cheer when something very insignificant is discovered and point it towards proving evolution. It is akin to finding an anthill in the desert and saying.. see there must be a 10k foot tall mountain just beyond the dunes because hills exist. This is done without explaining what could make the mountain if they are trying to equate the anthill with it.

What does betting one's life have to do with anything? Biologists accept evolution as an accurate model for how life has changed because it works so well. It explains and predicts a vast range of data, and no other model makes even a half-hearted attempt to do so. We're going to keep accepting it until someone comes up with a model that does a better job with the data. Yelling at us that evolution is impossible (when you obviously haven't bothered to learn even the basics about the subject) and insulting us certainly isn't going to do the trick.

betting ones life on a theory tells you how much faith you really have in it. I would bet my life evolution is false, would you? I still say man will never create life from dead matter..... ever because we will never be smart enough to do so, and ironically if man ever managed to do so he would be guilty of intelligent design therefore evolution cannot prove itself without proving intelligent design according to the rules science itself asserts when it comes to proof.

 

[Sophrosyne]

sfs - did you see my post #90, which describes an aspect of mendelian genetics addressed by the modern synthesis? This may resolve the discussion over mendelian genetics.


Sophrosyne - did you miss my last post in our discussion? I thought that might have happened because you've posted on here several times but haven't responded to that post (it was post # 81). Here they are for your convenience:



+ #9. Waiting for Sophrosyne to pick some of the transitional fossils from the series listed in post #81 and describe the transitional features in them - this should be easy because Sophrosyne has studied them and is familiar with them.

Thanks!

Papias

logically speaking do transitional fossils (if they are truly such) tell us which direction evolution is heading? evolution states it must go forward but If a backwards species still exists evolution makes an excuse for it to do so and if a species that is forwards doesn't go forward and goes extinct we get another excuse so therefore there is no logical proof that evelution goes anywhere because it is possible those species existed from the start and just died anyway. The cambrian explosion is logical proof of all sorts of things going at once time. Evolution has a problem with extinction because there is plenty of room for infinite amount of species on earth yet scientists are telling us constantly that more and more species are vanishing. We get more excuses why that happens. Fossil records are nonsense when it comes to explain evolution as they should be a huge mess and blurr instead of being able to sort out species somewhat neatly we should be unable to categorize them at all yet we have these *jumps* from worm to fish to this and that that clever scientists come up with to support evolution OUT OF DESIRE.... not of logic. Instead of trying to find ANY other reason THAN evolution as an explanation for ANYTHING that is in the fossil records and instead of saying.... this species devolved into that one.... they always side with their indoctrination of evolution. It must go forwards.. we must believe evolution goes forwards... because evolution says so therefore ALL fossils prove evolution or we ignore them even if they look like devolution. I contend all fossiles that appear as species evolving are devolving because I say so... that to me is just as much proof as things going forwards because evolution says so I contend logically by saying that a point between two points does not tell you which direction a line is going. evolution is not an intelligent process so therefore it does not know it is going forwards, backwards, or even sideways to make all the DNA errors it *needs* to hop to the next chain on the ladder of life and make it here. You can look at data and fossils and make theories all you want to but in the end one must have a bias towards one theory to come to a conclusion wanted over another theory that is equally as valid.

 

[Sophrosyne]

"Dead life". Speaking of oxymorons...
So is your problem with evolution, then, that man was ultimately created from non-living matter? Because the Bible teaches that, too (man was created from dust). Honestly, there's nothing oxymoronic about evolutionary creation. That God used natural processes to bring about biodiversity is no different than the idea that He used natural reproductive and developmental processes to bring about you and I.

God said he created animals in the beginning unless you ignored that in the bible and now say evolution created animals and God only created the bacteria or one celled organisms and programmed them to evolved.

I believe God designed DNA and then used an evolutionary process to fulfill that design. Again, agency and mechanism are two different things. You're conflating your terms, here.

you believe that because you accept evolution and you reject that God would create man in his own image to be the vessel of himself on earth.... a savior God named Jesus. Why would Jesus risk a process that requires tinkering to make man evolve from non man of today at all and why would we need even mention of adam and eve if it were not the start of mankind and all this ape/man nonsense that evolution believes is the *mechanism* for man's origin?

I don't reject your analogies because you lack an education. I reject your analogies because they are wrong (as a result of your lack of education). Your whole understanding of evolution is wrong, as evidenced by your belief that individuals evolve, that "devolution" exists, or that organisms can evolve "beyond" their ancestry. These are serious misconceptions, and I can't take your arguments seriously if you clearly have not even a basic understanding of the topic you're trying to discuss. If I told you that 1 + 2 = 7, would you take me seriously as a mathematician?

you reject my analogies because of your desire to be seen as right when believing in evolution. I do not need to read endless articles that hype this and that adaptations of species and fill in the blanks fossil arrangements and assumptions and models and other *magic* evolutionists come up with to try and logically explain how their system declares that there is no intelligence in the design of anything. According to evolution it is based upon flaws to *create* the chain of life from simple to complex. God said his creation was perfect and sin (flaws) entered and from then on things got worse not better. If you look at what the effect of evolution has had on people do you agree more people are accepting God because of evolution or rejecting him? If so why would God use that method of creation if it were a stumbling block to accepting him? I contend God would never give man ANY excuse to reject him whatsoever period. he would know from the start this would happen so therefore he created life with DNA as a mechanism and used it to confound evolutionists at every step in proving it just enough that they have to have *faith* in evolution instead of knowing 100% without a doubt it explains everything.

 

[Mallon]

God said he created animals in the beginning unless you ignored that in the bible and now say evolution created animals and God only created the bacteria or one celled organisms and programmed them to evolved.

Not at all. Evidently, you don't believe that God is capable of acting through natural processes. I do. Just because something is evolved doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

you believe that because you accept evolution and you reject that God would create man in his own image to be the vessel of himself on earth.... a savior God named Jesus.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never denied man's being created in the image of God. I do reject the notion that that image is a physical one, though (as do most theologians). As such, there is no conflict between evolution and God's image.

Why would Jesus risk a process that requires tinkering to make man evolve from non man of today at all and why would we need even mention of adam and eve if it were not the start of mankind and all this ape/man nonsense that evolution believes is the *mechanism* for man's origin?

Great question. And the more I think about it, the more I think I'm coming to understand the answer.
If there's one thing this forum has taught me, it's that no matter how simply the evolutionary process is explained, there are still people out there who are too dense to understand it (YEC Todd White blogged about something similar yesterday: Todd's Blog: The evidence for evolution). Knowing, then, that He could not accurately explain our evolutionary origins in Genesis without hopelessly confusing a fraction of the world, God gave us an easy to remember 6-day creation account instead so that everyone could have a chance at understanding its message.

If you look at what the effect of evolution has had on people do you agree more people are accepting God because of evolution or rejecting him? If so why would God use that method of creation if it were a stumbling block to accepting him?

I think YECism is the stumbling block, not evolution. The people who leave the faith after learning about evolution in college are usually students who have been brought up as YEC fundamentalists, feeling they have been lied to their whole lives about the evidence. Most other Christians are better able to accommodate new information from God's creation and don't feel the need to reject it.