Loggerhead Turtles Defy Evolutionary Explanation

[TerranceL]

So, if someone told you, "dark is just the absence of light," you would respond with: "Light is just the absence of dark!" ????

And he would feel proud of it, as if he had just made an earth shattering statement.

 

[Split Rock]

Who do you think built the pyramids?

Alien Space Astronauts. Haven't you ever read, "Chariots of the Gods??"

 

[Greg1234]

Who do you think built the pyramids?

The ancient Egyptians did. I see no reason to discard the analysis of hieroglyphs as historically inaccurate, attribute it to natural erosion or to say that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can assemble the Great Pyramid, (in deep time somewhere) which refutes their records.

 

[Thobewill]

The ancient Egyptians did. I see no reason to discard the analysis of hieroglyphs as historically inaccurate, attribute it to natural erosion or to say that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can assemble the Great Pyramid, (in deep time somewhere) which refutes their records.

A pyramid is obviously intelligently designed, and no known processes could assemble the pyramids. The mountains are not inscribed with records and info about who it was build for, when it was built, its purpose, etc. We can use the same dating techniques that we use to date the world to date the pyramids. We have no reason to believe at all that it was assembled by nature. Additionally, heiroglyphics inscribed on the pyramids themselves are far more reliable (as they are primary sources) than the bible. Your analogy has failed.

 

[Delphiki]

He'll use it again anyway, though.


...and again.. and again...

 

[Thobewill]

He'll use it again anyway, though.


...and again.. and again...

Just like animals are like ceiling fans, so too are the pyramid builders gods.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

Wow. Are you being serious, or am I being Poe'd. I'm not quite sure.

Goddidit offters nothing in the way of explaining anything. EVERYTHING we've ever known came through the scientific method.

As for your example, we may not know now, but guess who will be responsible for discovering it when we do. I'll give a hint... it won't be Ken Hamm.

OK. I've gotten quite alot of "answers" to my question regarding the inadequacy of "Goddidit", but I do not feel I have been sufficiently answered on this point.

When we see conundrums (such as the human brain's complexity or the loggerhead's migration) in nature, it really boils down to two options: either nature did it or God did it. I feel a lot safer if I know God did it.

Besides the "Goddidit" worldview does notstifle research and scientific investigation. Consider the work of The Institute for Creation Research, a network for creation scientists doing actual research. Also consider that the very inspiration behind the roots of modern science was a belief that "Goddidit".

That's right: a belief that God is behind it all actually serves as an impetus to get scientific research rolling. Standing in awe at the infinite capabilities of a God, it is only logical that a man should be inspired to dig into nature in order to discover just how complex and intelligent God is.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

A pyramid is obviously intelligently designed, and no known processes could assemble the pyramids. The mountains are not inscribed with records and info about who it was build for, when it was built, its purpose, etc. We can use the same dating techniques that we use to date the world to date the pyramids. We have no reason to believe at all that it was assembled by nature. Additionally, heiroglyphics inscribed on the pyramids themselves are far more reliable (as they are primary sources) than the bible. Your analogy has failed.

So you have no problem with the fact that the "Egyptians did it"? What, my friend, is different about "Goddidit"? I suspect it is the implications of His sovereignty that makes all the difference to your mind. Hence, by sticking to evolution theory, you appear to be trying to run away from a God and the implications of His ability to judge at the end of time.

Pardon me for erring on the side of rudeness, but I just can't get over how you would definitely see design in the pyramids while ignoring the impossibility of the vastly more complex DNA molecule having arisen without an intelligent agent. And as if that weren't enough, consider the existence of the world's most efficient motor, ATP synthase.

 

[anabaptistfaith]

Sorry, dude. "God did it and he did it that way because that's the way he did it," offers no real explanation at all.

Why, my friend, do you insist that God is only a wimp's solution? Even you would admit that the whole of humanity knows only a small fraction of what there is to know. What is inadequate about excluding God from that section of reality that we do not yet know of?

I asked you before... please give me an example of evidence that you would claim does not offer support for biblical creationism. Just one, please. Otherwise, if any evidence = evidence for biblical creationism, than no evidence offers support for biblical creationism.

For one, if there were no manuscript that is to be logically regarded as the record of a Creator's actions, then biblical creationism would fall flat.

Or, for example, if there were no evidence of a worldwide catastrophe, such as the Grand Canyon and similar fossils found all over the world.

Also show us a step-by-step, slow-and-gradual way in which even the human eye could evolve, and we might have to start seriously questioning our stance. Then when you've accomplished that, adequately explain the human brain in the same manner. Add to this a presently observed process in living things that brings about such astounding organs, and creationism is zilch.

And speaking of the brain, please do tell me how you can trust yours, since by being an atheist/agnostic, it is only logical for you to assume that it is merely a chance organization of a bunch of chemical reactions going off and hence randomly inspiring the words you are typing out on this forum. How are you to say that these chance chemical reactions are not seriously misleading and faulty? Again, God provides a much better and safer explanation.

That is why I choise tuna to compare to whales... because they both live in the ocean. Why would your god give a sequence to a whale more homologous to a cow, than to a fish? Whales and fish live in the same environment, and cows do not. Yet, the sequence is more similar to a cow than a tuna. Why? Evolution has an answer. Does biblical creationism?

Yes: God did it. And I am not ashamed to say that.

Are there any evidences that you would not claim as "for biblical creationism?"

I've given you some. Are there any you would not claim as "for evolution"?

Interesting how your "creation ministry" source only told half the story. Here is the rest:

Have peacock tails lost their sexual allure? - life - 27 March 2008 - New Scientist

So, you see, it isn't so cut and dry as you suggest.

Interesting how there is still not an adequate evolutionary explanation for how such complex structures come about in the first place. Sexual selection is one thing, but there must first come a process that would create such complexity that could be seen by peahens. In other words, for any sort of natural selection to operate, there must first be options to select from. What created the most complex option in the case of the peacock's tail?

 

[Naraoia]

Who do you think built the pyramids?

Intelligent builders, no doubt

The ancient Egyptians did. I see no reason to discard the analysis of hieroglyphs as historically inaccurate, attribute it to natural erosion or to say that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can assemble the Great Pyramid, (in deep time somewhere) which refutes their records.

Who ever claimed that the pyramids were not built by intelligent forces?

That's right: a belief that God is behind it all actually serves as an impetus to get scientific research rolling. Standing in awe at the infinite capabilities of a God, it is only logical that a man should be inspired to dig into nature in order to discover just how complex and intelligent God is.

Yes, it is undeniably one of the reasons a human can get interested in nature. (Judging by the existence of atheist scientists, it's also clearly not the only reason)

The key thing is, scientists like Newton didn't stop at saying Goddidit - they went ahead and figured out the laws of nature that made God's creation tick. Newton's laws of mechanics and gravity are true explanations. They take a large number of apparently disparate observations (like the falling of apples on earth or the apparent motion of planets in the sky) and reduce them to a simpler set of unifying principles. Such principles can also be used to predict new observations - the existence of Neptune, for example, was predicted because Uranus wandered in the sky just as if the gravitational force of another body in Neptune's orbit was tugging at it.

"Goddidit" is not an explanation like that. An omnipotent God can do literally anything, and even if he isn't omipotent - how do you know what he will and won't do? How do you simplify the world by saying Goddidit? How do you know what God will do tomorrow? If all you can do is appear after the fact and declare that God could have done this or that, you're no better than someone who just throws up their hands and says "duh, apples fall because that's what apples do".

 

[Naraoia]

Pardon me for erring on the side of rudeness, but I just can't get over how you would definitely see design in the pyramids while ignoring the impossibility of the vastly more complex DNA molecule having arisen without an intelligent agent. And as if that weren't enough, consider the existence of the world's most efficient motor, ATP synthase.

DNA arises without intelligent agents all the time (unless enzymes are "intelligent"), and its complexity mostly boils down to the stuff proteins and RNA do with it. At its heart, DNA is just a string of nucleotides, the same four components repeated over and over and over again. Nucleotides are chemistry, nucleic acid oligomers are chemistry, and the rest of the machinery of life, ribosomes and proteins and all the rest, have quite plausibly simple beginnings.

For example...

YouTube - ‪The Origin of the Genetic Code‬‏

Given all the extra layers of complexity that have been heaped on life since it first appeared, it's easy to forget that everything need not have popped into existence fully formed...

As for the world's most efficient motor, I'd like to quietly point out that pretty much the entire visible biosphere is founded on one of the most ridiculously inefficient enzymes in existence. Great design, there.

 

[Greg1234]

Just like animals are like ceiling fans, so too are the pyramid builders gods.

Greg1234: Organisms posess the limited ability to adapt using a program and reproduction. Limited adaptation can also be found in other machinery like ceiling fans.

Darwinist: Ceiling fans don't reproduce

 

[Thobewill]

Greg1234: Organisms posess the limited ability to adapt using a program and reproduction. Limited adaptation can also be found in other machinery like ceiling fans.

Darwinist: Ceiling fans don't reproduce

Exactly

 

[Greg1234]

Exactly

Organisms exhibit the same type of limited adaptability found in ceiling fans when reproduction is taken into consideration.

 

[Thobewill]

Organisms exhibit the same type of limited adaptability found in ceiling fans when reproduction is taken into consideration.

But the "genetic code" of the ceiling fan isn't changing. It's just going faster, and isn't adapting to anything. Turning up the speed is akin to running faster to avoid a predator, not adapting to be faster runners overall.

 

[Nostromo]

Organisms exhibit the same type of limited adaptability found in ceiling fans when reproduction is taken into consideration.

Individuals might do, but populations exposed to certain stimuli over successive generations don't. That's why reproduction is important.

 

[Greg1234]

But the "genetic code" of the ceiling fan isn't changing. It's just going faster, and isn't adapting to anything. Turning up the speed is akin to running faster to avoid a predator, not adapting to be faster runners overall.

The genetic code is changing just like the speed setting is changing. But they are limited.

 

[Split Rock]

Why, my friend, do you insist that God is only a wimp's solution? Even you would admit that the whole of humanity knows only a small fraction of what there is to know. What is inadequate about excluding God from that section of reality that we do not yet know of?

That's called "God of the Gaps," and all it does is make God a place-holder for what we don't know yet. It also closes the door on further research. "Goddidit.. we're done, now." We learn absoultely nothing about the physical world around us by finishing with, "Goddidit.. end of story."

For one, if there were no manuscript that is to be logically regarded as the record of a Creator's actions, then biblical creationism would fall flat.

That's like saying if there was no life on earth, evolution would fall flat. Without the bible, there would never be bilbical creationism, so it would never even have a chance to fall flat.

Or, for example, if there were no evidence of a worldwide catastrophe, such as the Grand Canyon and similar fossils found all over the world.

So you really mean to tell me if there was no Grand Canyon, that it would disprove biblical creationism? Really? What part of biblical creationism is directly dependant on there being a Grand Canyon? Does the bible say anything about the Grand Canyon?

As far as fossils are concerned, the Flood was only supposed to have happened a couple of thousand years ago... why would there need to be fossils everywhere?

Also show us a step-by-step, slow-and-gradual way in which even the human eye could evolve, and we might have to start seriously questioning our stance. Then when you've accomplished that, adequately explain the human brain in the same manner. Add to this a presently observed process in living things that brings about such astounding organs, and creationism is zilch.

We've done all that, but it doesn't seem to be enough.

And speaking of the brain, please do tell me how you can trust yours, since by being an atheist/agnostic, it is only logical for you to assume that it is merely a chance organization of a bunch of chemical reactions going off and hence randomly inspiring the words you are typing out on this forum. How are you to say that these chance chemical reactions are not seriously misleading and faulty? Again, God provides a much better and safer explanation.

That is a ridiculous statement. No one claims that brain activity is random! How is that logical? No wonder you are not an agnostic or atheist.. youa re very confused about what that entails.

Yes: God did it. And I am not ashamed to say that.

You should be. As usual, creationism offers no answers for anything.

I've given you some. Are there any you would not claim as "for evolution"?

I have given you logical hypothetical evidence that would falsify evolution. So far, your response for falsification of creationism has not been convincing. The absence of the Grand Canyon or even any canyon would hardly persuade you or any one else that creationism is wrong.

Interesting how there is still not an adequate evolutionary explanation for how such complex structures come about in the first place. Sexual selection is one thing, but there must first come a process that would create such complexity that could be seen by peahens. In other words, for any sort of natural selection to operate, there must first be options to select from. What created the most complex option in the case of the peacock's tail?

Mutation and selection.

 

[mmderivative]

Why are the peacock's feather colors not explanable by evolution? do you just attach the label, "not explanable by evolution" to everything that you or some creationist mathematician cannot figure out yourselves?

How is it explainable by evolution?

I don't have a high enough post count to link to the video I'd like to, but you can google "khan academy", click on science -> biology -> "natural selection and the owl butterfly"

This video is a good introduction of this subject, dealing with another creature with and "eye" pattern, and how it can be selected for.

My thoughts: Sexual selection AND predatory selection, among other selecting conditions must be accounted for. Remember, if a certain trait, such as the beginning of an eyelike pattern, makes an individual even marginally more likely to survive and reproduce, that trait will take prominence after thousands of generations. In other words, There has to just be one sliver of advantage in an organism for it to have evolutionary significance. One study cannot possibly rule out this possibly small sliver of advantage.

This is in support and addition to Split Rock's post #42 on page 5 of this thread.

 

[mmderivative]

Interesting how there is still not an adequate evolutionary explanation for how such complex structures come about in the first place. Sexual selection is one thing, but there must first come a process that would create such complexity that could be seen by peahens. In other words, for any sort of natural selection to operate, there must first be options to select from. What created the most complex option in the case of the peacock's tail?

Well, let me add to Split Rock's post above.

Sexual reproduction, along with mutation create a varied set of options which can then be selected for. The combinations of paternal and maternal genes that are given to each new organism are almost infinite.

Post count not high enough to direct link, so I'd lead you all to a video that talks about this subject.

google "Khan Academy", click science->biology->"Variation in a Species"

Enjoy!