proving evolution as just a "theory"

[BradB]

Sure. On the 5th Day/Age of Creation

Sorry but I can't get past this statement. Where do you get this "day/age" notion from? Specially since the Bible makes it crystal undeniably clear that the creation week was 6 literal 24 hour days not day ages. The Hebrew word translated day here is yom occurs over 2000 times in the Old Testament. It is almost always associated with an actual 24 hour day and in every single case where it is modified with a number it does in fact mean a literal 24 hour period. It is found this way 359 times. So why would Genesis 1 be any exception? Can yom mean a long period of time? Absolutely it can. So context is everything. In Genesis 1 Moses had several other words he could have used to mean long periods of time if that was what he was trying to convey. However he used the one and only Hebrew word that can mean a literal 24 hour day. He also carefully couched this word in the phrase "evening and morning" which he knew we would associate with a literal 24 hour day. And in case we were still a little fuzzy on what he meant, when he wrote down the ten commandments in Ex.20:8-11 he told them that in six days God worked and rested on the seventh and so they were to do likewise. Obviously he didn't mean the Jews were only to rest every 7 day/ages.

 

[BradB]

What SETI astronomers are looking for are narrow-band microwave signals of a kind not thought to be produced by natural causes.

That is a specific kind of signal right?

 

[Speedwell]

That is a specific kind of signal right?

Right, the point being that intention (design) cannot be directly detected. What is detected is evidence of intentional manufacture. For example, if I go camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer--but you would not be able to find it after I moved on. Even if I shaped it a little for the purpose by banging it against another rock you would be hard-pressed to find it after I moved on. Ask any paleontologist who tries to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for is not evidence of purpose, but evidence of manufacture--production by non-natural forces. Consequently, when presented with an object or phenomenon we can reach only two conclusions: we know it was designed, or we don't know whether it was designed or not.

ID proponents have set themselves a harder task. They need to demonstrate the presence of design even in the absense of the usual determinants, what Paley called "indications of contrivance."

 

[Kylie]

If someone says something it is up to them to prove what they say.

And if someone posts a quote, then it is up to them to prove that it is relevant and not taken out of context.

Would you please do this for the quote you provided in post 4926?

 

[pitabread]

I don't know. How can you claim it was taken out of context if you don't know the context?

I don't know if it's taken out of context or not. But given the history creationists have with taking quotes out of context is why I'd like to see the original context.

If you don't have it, that's fine. But don't expect anyone to take it particularly seriously then.

You can't, so you gave the usual reply to something that refutes you theology. That only shows you accept something by faith alone.

First of all, we're not taking theology. We're talking science. It helps to learn the difference.

Second, a singular quote taken from who knows what doesn't refute anything.

Actually the context is not necessary if you understood mutations. They only alter a characteristic the offspring would have gotten without the mutation. When a mutation causes the kid to become an albino, the species remains exactly the same as its parents.

And if you understood the process of evolution, you'd understand its inherently recursive in nature; IOW, change builds on change.

 

[pitabread]

Name them and provide your source

Egypt, Sumer and China. Egypt is especially fascinating to me since the timeline of the YEC global flood is smack dab in the middle of Egypt's 6th dynasty.

You have Google. You can look them up.

 

[Dirk1540]

...that is DISHONEST and, to me, indicates that the copy-paster lacks sufficient knowledge to make their own case.

Maybe you are OK with dishonesty used to cover ignorance, but most people are not.

I wouldn't, especially when the plagiarism is used try to "win" an argument, and the plagiarist clearly does not understand the material enough to understand it, much less discuss it.

And these cut and pasters - can they DISCUSS what they cut and paste?

I've already agreed with every statement here,

Ok now this would be different, I'm with you here. If you don't even grasp a concept but you start posting it or you start reciting it to someone because it just 'Sounds Smart' and you think it's from some smart guy, then yes that is lame. But if you grasp it, and we're just in a forum, and it builds on your point, I would call it 'Referencing' not plagiarizing...fire away if it helps your argument.

And these statements do not refer to Uber. He engages. He also seems to be an instructor who is short on time and probably could use every shortcut he can get. He leaves for long stretches and then plays catch-up within a few hours as far as I've noticed.

when asked to explain the copy-paste, they've got nothing.

And the problem is that this is NOT what you did. You instead used plagiarism as a sague to abandon the topic and just keep calling him a plagiarizer from then on. As a member who was just reading along I probably wouldn't have even commented if you called him a plagiarizer but then resumed the topic. If you instead "Asked him to explain" which you claim is your follow up move, yet it was not. It looked like a red herring to me, topic was abandoned under the guise of outrage towards plagiarism...where was you follow up move to press him for explanations towards the plagiarized material??

Is it really that hard to post a link? To use quotation marks? To write "I got this from X"???

Fair enough. But again I wish it wasn't used to end the discussion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was void."

Here's what I don't know. I don't know how long the earth remained in that state before God began the creation of what was needed for life here. The earth could be pretty old.

I also don't know exactly what the earth looked like at the time if Noah. I don't know how high the mountains were and neither do you. I do know the amount of catastrophic change that had to have taken place at that time had to have been unbelievable. With the earth opening up to let out the waters speaks of catastrophic earthquakes and upheaval.

It is largely irrelevant how long you think it was from the creation of the earth to the first life. If you believe the first animals that walked on earth were created in the last 10,000 years, then your view is completely contradicted by the known facts of science.

And regardless of how high you think the mountains were, if you think the entire world was covered by a flood in the last 10,000 years, then your view is completely contradicted by the known facts of science.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The inability to reproduce does not change the species. The fruit flies remained fruit flies. The inability to feed on both may be the result of a mutation. For that example to support evolution, the fruit flies must become something mother than a fruit fly.

Patience, my friend, patience.

If I gave you a tomato seed, would you come back 10 days later and complain that all it produced was a little shoot? No, tomatoes take months to grow. If you got the shoot in 10 days, all is well.

Likewise, you will not see a fruit fly evolve into something that looks like a grasshopper in one century. That would take millions of years.

So the failure to see a grasshopper evolve from a fruit fly in a century is no more of a problem for evolution than the failure of your seed to produce tomatoes in 10 days is a problem to botany.

You asked for evidence for a new species being made. I gave it to you. Should you choose to thank me, I will tell you that you are welcome.

I can give you evidence that species evolve at a rate consistent with the claims of evolution. I can not give you evidence that they proceed at the ridiculously fast rate you ask.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And if someone posts a quote, then it is up to them to prove that it is relevant and not taken out of context.

Would you please do this for the quote you provided in post 4926?

Let me help with that:

Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

See this Conservapedia entry. He made a number of assertions and failed to provide any evidence in support.

 

[rjs330]

Right, the point being that intention (design) cannot be directly detected. What is detected is evidence of intentional manufacture. For example, if I go camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer--but you would not be able to find it after I moved on. Even if I shaped it a little for the purpose by banging it against another rock you would be hard-pressed to find it after I moved on. Ask any paleontologist who tries to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for is not evidence of purpose, but evidence of manufacture--production by non-natural forces. Consequently, when presented with an object or phenomenon we can reach only two conclusions: we know it was designed, or we don't know whether it was designed or not.

ID proponents have set themselves a harder task. They need to demonstrate the presence of design even in the absense of the usual determinants, what Paley called "indications of contrivance."

In what reality do we observe the complexity of things where everything functions like clockwork and we don't recognize design. We have life on Earth that just happened to apoear. We have an earth that sits the right distance from the sun in order to sustain life. We have at atmosphere that is just right to be able to allow enough of the sun's Ray's onto the planet to warm it to the right temperature for life and block the dangerous Ray's that would destroy it. We have certain kinds of life that are built to exist in salt water. We have life that is built to exist in fresh water. We have life that is built to live on land and breathe oxygen released by the plants that are built to exist on the air released by the animals. We have animals that are built to exist on cold climates or warm climates. We have eyes to be able see the world around us. We have ears to hear the world around us. We have brains that send out electrical impulses that cause our hearts to beat to pump the necessary blood though our bodies were the lungs exist to provide the oxygen for the blood. Our brains impulses give us the ability to control our movements all the way to the fine motor skills we have and the nerves provide the ability to feel what we need to feel. Our bodies are built to digest food of whatever type we need. Plant eaters are different from the meat eaters. Predator eyes are built for locating and seeing the prey while the preys eyes are built to see predators.

Humans are unique among all and have built and invented amazing things which we recognize as designs. Yet our designs and the things we have created have nothing on nature itself.

And yet we refuse to recognize that design was involved? We recognize and would scoff at anything else if we said it was not designed. But somehow nature with it's complexity and ability to survive is not designed. It just happened without a designer.

It's not contrivance. Its reality. And we know there are those who just refuse to see it. Paul said it would happen.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Show us a car evolving from a self-replicating molecule.

Scratch that. You can't.

If Xianghua can show a car evolving from a self-replicating molecule, I want a front row seat to watch.

Alas, I fear it was just an empty claim. Sad, that.

 

[Speedwell]

In what reality do we observe the complexity of things where everything functions like clockwork and we don't recognize design. We have life on Earth that just happened to apoear. We have an earth that sits the right distance from the sun in order to sustain life. We have at atmosphere that is just right to be able to allow enough of the sun's Ray's onto the planet to warm it to the right temperature for life and block the dangerous Ray's that would destroy it. We have certain kinds of life that are built to exist in salt water. We have life that is built to exist in fresh water. We have life that is built to live on land and breathe oxygen released by the plants that are built to exist on the air released by the animals. We have animals that are built to exist on cold climates or warm climates. We have eyes to be able see the world around us. We have ears to hear the world around us. We have brains that send out electrical impulses that cause our hearts to beat to pump the necessary blood though our bodies were the lungs exist to provide the oxygen for the blood. Our brains impulses give us the ability to control our movements all the way to the fine motor skills we have and the nerves provide the ability to feel what we need to feel. Our bodies are built to digest food of whatever type we need. Plant eaters are different from the meat eaters. Predator eyes are built for locating and seeing the prey while the preys eyes are built to see predators.

Humans are unique among all and have built and invented amazing things which we recognize as designs. Yet our designs and the things we have created have nothing on nature itself.

And yet we refuse to recognize that design was involved? We recognize and would scoff at anything else if we said it was not designed. But somehow nature with it's complexity and ability to survive is not designed. It just happened without a designer.

It's not contrivance. Its reality. And we know there are those who just refuse to see it. Paul said it would happen.

Design is purpose. Complexity is not design; functionality is not design. Design is purpose. I am a believer; I believe that the universe embodies God's purpose. In that sense, everything that exists is "designed." But design cannot be directly detected in an object. It is an unfalsifiable proposition and cannot be tested for.
The problem with ID is that it is an attempt to demonstrate the presence of design directly, by falsely conflating design with functionality so that the existence of God may be forced onto non-believers in aid of a political agenda.

 

[doubtingmerle]

prove it.

Here are two examples of evolution repurposing something existing for a new function:

Reuse, recycle, repurpose …. how evolution makes do.

How evolution repurposed a bone gene for brain development | November 10, 2016 Issue - Vol. 94 Issue 45 | Chemical & Engineering News

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually it doesn't change anything. The If says if it happened, the following should be true. It's an assumption. It's still speculation. All they really said was that life has commonalities.

Uh, no, that is not all that is really said in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

The one page you quoted from shows that all life has the same basic structures for basic functions, indicating a common source. You might argue that common source is a common creator, but then why do creatures not share other things in common? For instance, Cytochrome C is a common protein in animals, but there are many different codes for making this protein. The closer animals are together in the evolutionary tree, the closer their codes are for making this protein. If a common creator used the exact same basic structures for all life, why would he not use the exact same structures for making Cytochrome C?

This difference is expected with evolution. Basic structures cannot change without radically reworking the organism, so they remained constant with time. Protein coding could change with evolution, so it did. Evolution would expect basic codes to remain the same, but coding for things like proteins to change with time. This is what we find.

Creationism would predict the creator uses the same basic structures, and the same coding for proteins that is known to work. This is not what we find.

If all creatures were being created from scratch, then a creator could have easily used different basic structure for each creature, just like he used different coding for proteins. But no creator did that. Instead the basic structures remain constant, while the protein coding varies.

Do you have any way of explaining this from Creationism?

 

[pitabread]

I'm sorry if you raised such a point. I seem to have missed it. Can you please give me the quick version again?

You had made a similar remark about the 'specificity' of a key being designed to fit a lock. I pointed out that there are many key-like objects not built to actually fit locks: props, jewelry, etc.

I also remember asking if an object can lose its specificity. For example, if a key is built to fit a specific lock, does the key lose its specificity if the lock is destroyed? Is the specificity of a key dependent on the lock?

 

[Kylie]

Let me help with that:

Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

See this Conservapedia entry. He made a number of assertions and failed to provide any evidence in support.

HA!

Conservapedia? That's a laugh riot.

Given that the conservapedia article makes no mention that he was a proponent of a hideously outdated and discredited idea (namely, Lamarkianism), and also given that Conservapedia itself discredits Lamarckianism, I don't see how they can consider this guy an authority.

But of course, it's the typical way this goes. A person is an expert if he's saying something you agree with, but the instant he says something you don't agree with, he's not an expert any more.

 

[Kylie]

If you understood the science of mutations, I would not have to explain it to you. You can't produce even one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species.

Let me offer you a quote from a qualified evolutionists:

"Mutations have no final evolutionary effect." Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, as quoted by William Baur, "Review of Evolution of living organisms.

Do you think that a person who clung to Lamarckianism, an outdated and discredit idea, counts as a "qualified evolutionist"?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

IOW you can't offer any evidence for what you accept by faith alone. Now everyone knows what I knew from the beginning.

Thank you.

You've been given the evidence. That you don't accept it just makes you look obtuse. Address the arguments and evidence that's already been given to you, then we can talk.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Well now you've done it. You've opened a really big can of worms here. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, time, space and matter all began at the singularity when the universe "banged" into existence. But what is time exactly? We define time as the measured interval between events. And of course matter must exist in order to have any event to measure an interval between. So yes in that way time did come into existence when matter did. But we have to understand that time as we know it is merely a man made construct. Did you ever wonder what makes our measure of time the supreme measurement? I mean if you were born and raised on Venus then one day there would be equivalent to about 224 earth days. So by this we can easily see how time is indeed very relative to your base line and thus must be only a man made construct. However what if time were not defined as the interval between events, but rather as any interval in which any events could happen? That would mean from a logical stand point that time would exist in the absence of matter and actually be infinite in both directions of the time line. And I mean lets face it, since it is only a man made construct anyways then it is not at all illogical from our human perspective to speak of time before the universe existed.

This of course means that God could have plenty of time within which to have existed infinitely.

What God? Also, you do know we experience the actual effects of relativity (i.e. different things at different locales, velocities and distances) Otherwise GPS for one thing, wouldn't work. I think you conflate "man made" with the label we give something we observe. Do you understand that time, space and matter as we understand it came into being at the beginning of this universe? Do you also understand we have observations all over that time does indeed tick over at different rates relative to the observer? Do you understand why a black holes are not visible to us?