-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Poll about evolutionary science
- Thread starter Late_Cretaceous
- Start date
Against my better judgement, sure.
Depends who you talk to. Ask a biologist, you'll get one answer. Ask a philosopher, you'll get another answer. Ask a science fiction writer ... on second thought, don't ask a science fiction writer.
Here's my definition: "Organisms that metabolize non-living material to generate energy, that reproduce, and that respond to environmental stimuli".
I guess that would depend on if you're talking about living matter or organic matter.
Again, depends on whether you're talking about someone who is actually alive. A recently deceased person will have all the same chemicals and substances as a living person. But are they "alive"?
*shrug* And I gave some simple answers.
Upvote
0
Which can be redeamed for valuable prizes!
(I'm thinking the complete Kent Hovind video collection should be one of the prizes)
Upvote
0
Hewitt
God's little drummer boy
- Apr 20, 2002
- 1,771
- 13
- 40
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Hey now, let's stay on topic here or this thread is history. No more personal remarks or troll points! Please be considerate of others because they have their right to their own opinions as well. Keep it clean please 
Upvote
0
Hewitt,
Giving out troll points was being considerate to Franklin. He deserved a lot worse for his libelous accusations of dishonesty. However, a mod's a mod. I'll just pm Frankilin with his score from now on.
Giving out troll points was being considerate to Franklin. He deserved a lot worse for his libelous accusations of dishonesty. However, a mod's a mod. I'll just pm Frankilin with his score from now on.
Upvote
0
judging from the ridiculousness of his arguments, i'd say he's already got those
perhaps a copy of a basic university biology textbook, maybe campbell
Upvote
0
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Rufus,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. We are closer together. Christians understanding of the nature of God is improved with good science, is my true position. I have no fear of science and in fact look forward to a better understanding of the nature of our Creator. So in a sense Theology conforms to good science. But unlike science Theology is an immovable object in regards to theory. Science needs theory, it's the engine of discovery. This is not possible in Theology.
As far as this relates to scripture, I believe the Bible is without error. I do not believe our understanding of the Bible is without error.
So, to me:
For science to expect Theology to conform to theory is not understanding the nature of Theology.
For Theology to claim that a current theory is false because it has potential impact to current Theology, is irrational.
Is this clear?
Upvote
0
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I just posted in this thread and because I was contributing to the thread I don't want to moderate it, that in my opinion is not fair.
However: The personal remarks have to stop. Post on the topic or just don't post. The topic is not Franklin.
However: The personal remarks have to stop. Post on the topic or just don't post. The topic is not Franklin.
Upvote
0
Chris H
Active Member
- Sep 1, 2002
- 240
- 0
- 59
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Getting back on subject, I have a serious question for Franklin. What will you do as a Christian when one of your children goes to college and sees he evidence for evolution firsthand. Will you e familiar enough with tthe real arguements used by scienists to talk intelligently with your children?
My concern lis leigitmate and pastoral, no one of troll points or wanting to make you look bad.
In Chris,
Chris
My concern lis leigitmate and pastoral, no one of troll points or wanting to make you look bad.
In Chris,
Chris
Upvote
0
Okay. I have no problem with that statement. I original thought that you judged "good" science from "bad" science based on wheather it confirmed your views of Creation. Sorry about the mixup.
As a whistle.
Upvote
0
Hmm. The saga thus far:
Poster 1: "Evolution is wrong!"
Poster 2: "How so?"
Poster 1: "Reasons X, Y and Z!"
Poster 2: "Um, those are nonsensical when applied to evolution. I mean, frankly, evolution doesn't even imply the things you're saying it does, much less be 'disproved' by them. It's like saying the existance of oranges disproves the existance of cars. You'd have to be pretty ignorant of what oranges where to make that claim. Perhaps if you learned a little about evolution?"
Poster 1: "I know plenty!".
Poster 2: "Um, your own statements indicate you don't know anything about it. I can recommend some books.."
Poster 1: "Why should I read those books of atheistic lies written by people who are biased towards evolution?"
Poster 2: "So you'd know what evolution was?"
Poster 1: "I don't need to! It's wrong!"
Poster 2: "How do you know it's wrong, if you don't understand it?"
Poster 1: "It's wrong for Reasons X, Y, and Z!"
Poster 2: "Didn't we just discuss this?"
It's pretty simple, Franklin: If you're demonstratably ignorant on a topic (and you have amply demonstrated that, whatever sterling qualities you might posess, a basic understanding of evolution is not one of them), then you should realize that not only are your objections going to be taken lightly, but failure to correct your ignorance once rebuted will not enhance your standing.
You don't have to believe it's right. But if you're going to argue, you should at least know what you're talking about.
Poster 1: "Evolution is wrong!"
Poster 2: "How so?"
Poster 1: "Reasons X, Y and Z!"
Poster 2: "Um, those are nonsensical when applied to evolution. I mean, frankly, evolution doesn't even imply the things you're saying it does, much less be 'disproved' by them. It's like saying the existance of oranges disproves the existance of cars. You'd have to be pretty ignorant of what oranges where to make that claim. Perhaps if you learned a little about evolution?"
Poster 1: "I know plenty!".
Poster 2: "Um, your own statements indicate you don't know anything about it. I can recommend some books.."
Poster 1: "Why should I read those books of atheistic lies written by people who are biased towards evolution?"
Poster 2: "So you'd know what evolution was?"
Poster 1: "I don't need to! It's wrong!"
Poster 2: "How do you know it's wrong, if you don't understand it?"
Poster 1: "It's wrong for Reasons X, Y, and Z!"
Poster 2: "Didn't we just discuss this?"
It's pretty simple, Franklin: If you're demonstratably ignorant on a topic (and you have amply demonstrated that, whatever sterling qualities you might posess, a basic understanding of evolution is not one of them), then you should realize that not only are your objections going to be taken lightly, but failure to correct your ignorance once rebuted will not enhance your standing.
You don't have to believe it's right. But if you're going to argue, you should at least know what you're talking about.
Upvote
0
franklin
Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
....and the saga continues.... Morat..... Here are some challenging questions for all the highly knowledgeable evolutionists that have been accusing me of not staying within the topic. So here is your chance to answer some difficult questions on the subject. Let's see what you can come up with on these......
Difficult questions for the evolutionists to answer:
Where did the first genetic information (DNA) come from, since all known information came from an intelligence? How could chance, mutations, & time create new animal kinds, since no known mutations have ever created new genetic information? How many mutations (positive ones) would have been needed to go from a non-living Atom to the first man, Adam? How much time would have been needed for all of these positive mutations to occur? How could all of these supposedly positive mutations overcome the cells corrective processes?
Why do statistical computer analyses now show that, not millions or even trillions, but virtually infinite time would have been required for evolution from an atom to an Adam, even if positive mutations were actually common. The amount of genetic information that would have to have been generated by chance mutations is incomprehensibly massive.
Are evolutionary studies about ORIGINS, science or history?
Difficult questions for the evolutionists to answer:
Where did the first genetic information (DNA) come from, since all known information came from an intelligence? How could chance, mutations, & time create new animal kinds, since no known mutations have ever created new genetic information? How many mutations (positive ones) would have been needed to go from a non-living Atom to the first man, Adam? How much time would have been needed for all of these positive mutations to occur? How could all of these supposedly positive mutations overcome the cells corrective processes?
Why do statistical computer analyses now show that, not millions or even trillions, but virtually infinite time would have been required for evolution from an atom to an Adam, even if positive mutations were actually common. The amount of genetic information that would have to have been generated by chance mutations is incomprehensibly massive.
Are evolutionary studies about ORIGINS, science or history?
Upvote
0
Hank
has the Right to be wrong
Neither. They are imaginative modern fairytales.
Click here - http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/Evolife.htm
The image puts Walt Disney to shame.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This question is essentially meaningless. If I shuffle a mix of atoms around long enough, I get acids and proteins. Where did the information come from? It was inherent in chemistry all along.
This one is just plain meaningless; I showed how chance mutations create new information a while back in a thread on information theory.
To make a long story short, the concept of what is "information" is a tricky one, but with any meaningful definition, we can easily see how the kinds of errors that occur in the reproduction of DNA, coupled with any kind of selection mechanism, can lead to "new information".
Upvote
0
franklin
Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
Nice try Seebs!
Here's some more questions for all those who embrace evolution.
Do you believe that evolution is true? If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas.
Where did this energy/matter come from?
How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing?
And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
Here's some more questions for all those who embrace evolution.
Do you believe that evolution is true? If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas.
Where did this energy/matter come from?
How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing?
And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
Upvote
0
fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
Originally posted by franklin
Nice try Seebs!
Here's some more questions for all those who embrace evolution.
Do you believe that evolution is true? If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas.
Where did this energy/matter come from?
How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing?
And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
Where did any matter/energy come from? No matter what theory you use to explain the creation of the Universe, you have to deal with this.
In the case of the Big Bang, the simple answer is God. The long answer involves the fact that gravitational potential energy is negative and possibly some other mechanisms that astrophysics have started to grapple with in the past decade.
Upvote
0
The genetic information in DNA came from previous RNAs. Non-sentient sources do create information. Ever hear of spectra?
Ahh yes, the "no-new-information" argument. Never refuted that one before.
It has been discussed before. Read this thread to see how faulty it is.
Here is something from an email I sent to a 15-yro creationist.
INFORMATION
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So in linking information theory to evolution, you must consider the information in the population, which you do not do. Biologically, information can refer to different things. Pseudogenes, contain information about evolutionary history but not information that can be selected for. In the context of this discussion, it would be better for us to consider the genetic information underlying traits, with an interest in adaptable traits. It is difficult to determine a way to measure the amount of this information, but one possibility is the size of the proteome. This is the number of unique proteins produced in the population and includes all loci and alleles. Whenever a mutation produces a novel allele, it adds information to the population. In other words, there is a new trait for selection to act upon. Here are two examples of the effects of information in a population.
Jeff knows something about Gina: "Gina is neat." Thus he has information about Gina. Before he leaves town, Jeff replicates this information by telling it to two people, Nick and Randy. Because neither of them pays attention, they dont replicate the information exactly. Nick thinks "Gina is sweat," and Randy thinks "Gina is near." We can measure the about of information about Gina by the number of non-redundant attributes people ascribe to her. Here, the amount of information about Gina has doubled: from "neat" to "sweat and near." Clearly when we remember that it is the population thats important to evolution, it is obvious how mutations can add information for selection to act upon.
Take this example retrieved from LocusLink [7], the only difference occurs in the 7th codon (6th amino acid because the first one, 'm,' gets cut off). The letters refer to amino acids [8].
Code:
Human Beta-hemoglobin (HBB)
1 mvhltpeeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh
HBB-S
1 mvhltpveks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh
HBB-C
1 mvhltpkeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyhEach allele does not encode the same information since each one produces a distinctly different product. A single point mutation has enough effect on the information contained in the genome that it can determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. In the presence of malaria, HBB-S is maintained because of heterozygote advantage. However, HBB-C also offers resistance to malaria, but the most fit genotype is the homozygote.[9] It is expected to become the most common allele in parts of Africa if the environment stays the same. These mutations have clearly added new information to the population. Selection then acts on this new information, changing the make up of the population. Thus, evolution happens.
It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gain or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution. In fact, the actual claim, when applied to biology, is that the information capacity of an individual's genome cannot increase. However, this claim is false because there are known types of mutations that can increase the length of the genome and thus its capacity to hold information. Ernst Mayr discusses this origin of new genes in his latest book.
Bacteria and even the oldest eukaryotes (protists) have a rather small genome. . . . This raises the question: By what process is a new gene produced? This occurs, most frequently, by the doubling of an existing gene and its insertion in the chromosome in tandem next to the parental gene. In due time the new gene may adopt a new function and the ancestral gene with its traditional function will then be referred to as the orthologous gene. It is through orthologous genes that the phylogeny of genes is traced. The derived gene, coexisting with the ancestral gene, is called paralogous. Evolutionary diversification is, to a large extent, effected by the production of paralogous genes. The doubling sometimes affects not merely a single gene, but a whole chromosome set or even an entire genome. [10]
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/
8. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html
9. Modiano D. et al. (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature: 414 pp 305-308
10. Mayr E. (2001) What Evolution Is. Basic Books.
Off subject question: evolution is not about atom to Adam.
Because error correction is not perfect. Mutations are the replications mistakes that don't get fixed.
Why does Franklin make assertions that he doesn't provide references for? I have computer analyses that prove that Canada doesn't exist.
Evolutionary biology is the scientific study of the diversity of life. This includes studying the mechanisms behind population change, the origin and relationishp of taxa, the natual history of earth, etc.
Considering that that is not "evolution" in any scientific sense (only in twisted creationist misconceptions), you are putting forth a straw-man.
The Big Bang has about as much to do with evolution as music theory or the architectural requirements of the candy industry does. However, I do have answers to your off subject questions.
Matter came from energy (E=mc^2). And the energy came from negative energy. Before the big bang, there was zero net energy content in the universe. That hasn't changed, since the amount of positive energy is countered by an equal amount of negative energy. I'm sure physics people can explain this better.
No one is assuming or even claiming that. Find some scientific references to the contrary.
Simple, the big band isn't an explosion, but rather a rapid expantion of space.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
