Question for Christian old-earth evolutionists

[excreationist]

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm not sure I follow your complaint about geneologies in the Bible.

I just moved and all my books are in boxes, so I can't look this up. But from my understanding, telescoping of geneologies means collapsing the geneologies more or less, depending on the author's purpose.

That's what I said in my reply - I said telescoping meant condensing. But that is the opposite of "augmenting" (i.e. adding fictional details) which is what you quoted me saying earlier.

That's one reason why the geneologies of Matthew and Luke differ. As I recall, Matthew skipped certain relationships so that he could present the geneology in groups of some number (I forget what the grouping number was).

Didaskomenos was saying that the genealogy in Luke wasn't accurate since people in early Genesis like Adam probably *weren't real*. I didn't ask him why the genealogies in Luke and Matthew were different. In Matthew 1:17 it says there were fourteen generations in each of three eras in history.... this agrees with the number of ancestors mentioned (14 x 3 = 42). Why would it say that there were 14 generations in an era if there were more than 14?

Another -- much more important -- reason for the difference between Matthew and Luke's geneology is that Matthew was tracing the geneology for Joseph, but Luke was tracing it to Mary.

The point was to establish the fact that Jesus had both a legal (Joseph) and biological (Mary) lineage from David, which is where the two geneologies split off into two differents sets.

I think the authors of both Luke and Matthew started with the idea that Jesus descended from King David in order to fulfil a prophecy and they invented their own genealogies....

If you look at my Bible genealogies page, you'd see that from Abraham to David, there is a 1:1 match with the genealogies between Matthew and Luke. Since Luke's genealogies from Adam to Abraham match 1:1 with no gaps it suggests that it has no gaps from Abraham to David - which would also suggest Matthew doesn't have gaps from Abraham to David either.... so it would be ununusual for Matthew to suddenly have lots of gaps later in the genealogy. I don't know why you're so sure there are gaps in the genealogies in Matthew.

Is there anything in the Bible which says that Luke's genealogy definitely involves Mary? Besides the deduction that this must be the case to prevent Matthew and Luke contradicting each other.

In Luke 3:23 it says "... [Jesus] was the son, so people thought, of Joseph..."

Who is this Joseph? Are you saying he was Mary's father? I don't think people would generally falsely believe that Jesus was Mary's father's son or grandson - since most probably wouldn't know her father. They would falsely believe that Mary's husband, Joseph, was Jesus's father though.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Jedi
Tell me, how are you able to reason?

Presumably the same way as everyone else; neurons.

You see, if there is no God, then our only option to explain how we are here is random evolutionary processes.

Selection is not random.

If our solar system came about my accidental collision (chance), then the appearance of earth is also an accident. If this is true, then the appearance of organic life on earth was an accident. If so, then the entire evolution of man was an accident as well. If this is true, then all of man's thought processes (i.e. of atheism and evolution) are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms.

This last bit doesn't follow. I see no reason to suppose that accidental processes could not yield patterns that we cannot honestly call "accidental" once they're in motion.

If this is so, why should I believe your thoughts and conclusions to be true? I see no reason to believe that one accident can take a correct account of all the other accidents.

Well, one starting place would be the observation that he's still breathing, so his model of the world is apparently at least "good enough to survive on".

Why should I believe your reflexes to random, outside variables (your thoughts) to be true? You're speaking nothing but mere random gibberish. It seems you are obligated to believe in the supernatural (of which you are a part), or else you are forced to commit intellectual suicide.

This is not much of an argument; it's basically pure handwaving. There are plenty of atheistic systems that answer these questions just fine, including some supernaturalist ones, and some based on pure naturalism.

Also, humanity has shown a great capacity to design. Humans have designed and constructed things such as the Golden Gate Bridge, super computers, automobiles, jets, submarines, the Internet, and entire cities. However, what is not created by design cannot, itself, design.

And why would that be? This is bald assertion, and is not convincing.

You cannot give what you do not have. And so since man can design, it would follow that he was designed, and what is designed needs a designer – God. To say that man cannot design would bring us back to our previous point, which is ultimately self-defeating.

And yet, the people most likely to claim that we can't design things (I've been told this on these very forums) are people who believe that humans cannot create or design or anything, because *all* creation is God's. Looks like we can't win. I guess that scraps my plans for a novel.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by excreationist
Didaskomenos was saying that the genealogy in Luke wasn't accurate since people in early Genesis like Adam probably *weren't real*. I didn't ask him why the genealogies in Luke and Matthew were different. In Matthew 1:17 it says there were fourteen generations in each of three eras in history.... this agrees with the number of ancestors mentioned (14 x 3 = 42). Why would it say that there were 14 generations in an era if there were more than 14?

Because he was telescoping in order to get 14. I think I said that, didn't I?

Originally posted by excreationist
I think the authors of both Luke and Matthew started with the idea that Jesus descended from King David in order to fulfil a prophecy and they invented their own genealogies....

Well, that's certainly something you can do. You can think they invented grape fudge for all I care.

Originally posted by excreationist
If you look at my Bible genealogies page, you'd see that from Abraham to David, there is a 1:1 match with the genealogies between Matthew and Luke. Since Luke's genealogies from Adam to Abraham match 1:1 with no gaps it suggests that it has no gaps from Abraham to David - which would also suggest Matthew doesn't have gaps from Abraham to David either....

It might suggest that to YOU. It doesn't suggest it to me. What it suggests to me is that Matthew started with Abraham instead of Adam (Luke starts with Joseph and goes backward to Adam). That was one way to get his target groups of 14. Why did he target groups of 14? I have no idea. I read a reason somewhere once, but I didn't understand it. It was some cultural thing about numbers, if I recall correctly. Then when Matthew HAD to diverge starting with David in order to trace the lineage to Joseph, he continued to do whatever was necessary to get the groups of 14, which required telescoping.

Originally posted by excreationist
so it would be ununusual for Matthew to suddenly have lots of gaps later in the genealogy. I don't know why you're so sure there are gaps in the genealogies in Matthew.

I'm not so sure about the remainder of the list. I read it somewhere and it didn't matter much to me so I didn't check into it. Skipping Adam to Abraham is telescoping, however.

Originally posted by excreationist
Is there anything in the Bible which says that Luke's genealogy definitely involves Mary? Besides the deduction that this must be the case to prevent Matthew and Luke contradicting each other.

A simple google search will get you a large number of (the same basic) explanations. For example, this one reminded me of the reason for the grouping -- to make the total number of generations come out to 40:

http://www.rockinauburn.com/columns/geneology.html

Scholars generally agree that the authors of the two gospels used their genealogies to prove different points. Matthew's genealogy is contrived, with 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, and then 12 to Joseph, making a nice, even 40 in all. Matthew's list is thought to a legalistic description proving Christ's genealogy to David, the lineage of the promised messiah, and then to Abraham, the patriarch of the nation.[/B]

And the link to Mary:

Which brings us to another point regarding Luke. Luke begins with Joseph. However, in the Greek Luke omits the article that should be associated with the name "Joseph." This omission suggests a secondary positioning of Joseph. Because of this and because of the wide differences between the two genealogies, even the earliest historians (e.g., Origen ca 225 AD) concluded that the Lucan text includes Joseph not as a son, but as the son-in-law. Thus the lineage in Luke is not the genealogy of Joseph, but of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Another reason Luke would put it this way would be because, unlike Matthew, he was avoiding using the names of women in his geneology, since official geneologies did not include women. Matthew's deviance from this standard was actually quite shocking at the time, I'm told.

 

[Jedi]

Selection is not random.

You are now talking about something totally different. Natural selection does not add to the variety of life – it only takes away. You only have loss through natural selection (the loss of the weak), not gain. When I say that evolutionary processes are random, I am speaking of mutations – the only very, very, very small possible chance that can add on to a species (though 99.5% of mutations are harmful to the organism or have no real effect on its survival). We are talking about mere chance mutations here – a rolling of the dice; flukes that happen in the DNA that change the genetic structure, and, by chance (since there is no intelligent being directing these changes), add to the complexity of the organism.

This last bit doesn't follow. I see no reason to suppose that accidental processes could not yield patterns that we cannot honestly call "accidental" once they're in motion.

So you want to say that human thought is nothing more than a pattern, huh? I thought I’ve explained this already elsewhere, but I’ll do it again. Patterns do not come up with meaning. If you’re saying that your thoughts are nothing more than a reoccurring pattern, then you are no more credible than a broken record player (which is also a pattern). The only difference is that the record was designed to give off meaning. According to atheism, you don’t even have that much. If what you’re saying is true, I have more reason to listen to a broken record player playing the same parts of Mozart over and over again when asking questions about life than I do you. There are also patterns in sand dunes – does that mean they all of a sudden have meaning and can reason about the truths of this world? Nope. They’re a pattern, nothing more. Not only that, but man’s thought processes are far from a strict pattern. Outside variables affect your thoughts, and change your thinking (thus changing the pattern all the time). A pattern is the design, but cannot design itself. If you are nothing more than a reoccurring pattern, then your thoughts are equal to that of a broken record player, and I see no reason to believe your words to be true.

The astronomer; Carl Sagan, unwittingly provided quite an interesting example. He notes that the genetic information in the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons--about 100 trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some 20 million volumes, as many as are stored in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of 20 million books is inside the heads of every one of us. "The brain is a very big place in a very small space," Sagan said. He went on to note that "the neuro-chemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans." But if this is so, then why does the human brain not need an intelligent Creator; as does even the simplest computer?

Well, one starting place would be the observation that he's still breathing, so his model of the world is apparently at least "good enough to survive on".

Oh, yes, the hidden question of evolution: why survive? Besides, that doesn't mean his model of the world has meaning - only that his actions haven't got himself killed just yet. You're now no longer talking about truth, but survival, and in the realm of survival, anything goes (Even falsehood and lying can help you survive). Just because you're still alive doesn't mean your philosophy is true.

This is not much of an argument; it's basically pure handwaving [sic]. There are plenty of atheistic systems that answer these questions just fine, including some supernaturalist [sic] ones, and some based on pure naturalism.

If there are so many, then why haven’t you provided one? Out of all my years of debating with atheists, they have never had the gall to face these objections (and those who have, failed to adequately do so).

And why would that be? This is bald assertion, and is not convincing.

Show me otherwise. Explain how something that is not designed can, itself, design. I’d be very interested to see you support your objection.

And yet, the people most likely to claim that we can't design things (I've been told this on these very forums) are people who believe that humans cannot create or design or anything, because *all* creation is God's. Looks like we can't win. I guess that scraps my plans for a novel.

The point I think that people might have been trying to make is that without God, you cannot design (which is precisely my point). He is the source of all design. However, he is also the source of all life, and I’m sure we can all agree that we are alive. Just because he’s the source of all design doesn’t necessarily mean he’s doing all the designing himself (if this were so, he would have designed things like Abortion Clinics, gas chambers, nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, etc).

I look forward to your reply.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Jedi
You are now talking about something totally different. Natural selection does not add to the variety of life – it only takes away. You only have loss through natural selection (the loss of the weak), not gain. When I say that evolutionary processes are random, I am speaking of mutations – the only very, very, very small possible chance that can add on to a species (though 99.5% of mutations are harmful to the organism or have no real effect on its survival). We are talking about mere chance mutations here – a rolling of the dice; flukes that happen in the DNA that change the genetic structure, and, by chance (since there is no intelligent being directing these changes), add to the complexity of the organism.

False. I addressed this point in a reply to your post from a month back.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=356308#post356308

 

[blader]

Jedi: By the way, althought it might be a bit obscure to the average person, "supernaturalist" is a correctly spelled word. What was wrong about it?

 

[Jedi]

False. I addressed this point in a reply to your post from a month back.

And if you’ll look, I posted a three-post reply after you posted (on the following page). I don’t include references when I quote people (at times a disadvantage it seems), but at any rate, I’ll go through your response piece by piece as I always do (as long as it pertains to the subject at hand), since I'm not sure if I saw your post or not before I replied to the comments made in that topic (We could've been working on our replies at the same time and I merely finished and posted after you did).

A flawed argument. You are claiming that it is impossible for a universe with an infinite timeline to exist. If there is a line that is infinitely long, it is perfectly possible to touch a point on it. Your argument is merely a variation of Zeno's paradox.

Actually, your understanding of the real situation is flawed. We are moving along the line – we aren’t outside of it so that we can place our finger on the time line where ever (whenever) we want. The thing about time is that you have to start from the beginning and progress from there (since every moment we experience is consecutive – one after another).

I think it would be nice to also note that, in sum, according to the famous physicist Stephen Hawking, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.)

It IS loss, but for the purposes of evolution it is a gain. The overall species becomes stronger, we agree on this, no? So let me address your other points.

You’re losing variety in genetic information (Evolution needs the addition of genetic information – not the loss of it). The weak disappear while the strong remain (you don’t get new “strong.” They merely remain while the weak vanish). Mutations can only go so far (if they actually promote the organism rather than cripple it or neutrally affect it as mutations do the vast majority of the time).

False. As chickenman pointed out, the variation is always there through mutation.

This is forgetting the fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful towards the organism (leading to devolution – the opposite way we want to go). This is also totally omitting the fact that organisms which have undergone mutations tend to not do so well the farther they get from their original genetic make-up.

Mutation will ensure that there will always be the weaker and the stronger. Once the stronger propagates through the species, mutations will ensure that there will still be variations in strength among this species. It is not a stagnant process as you envision.

Such mutations aren’t as dramatic as you make them out to be at the macro-level. I find it interesting how whenever an evolutionist wants to take the stand of mutations, he runs directly to the micro-level (since the macro-level gives extremely little support). If they dramatically affected the lives of macro-organisms (enabling them to survive better) all the time, why don't evolutionists go directly to this instead of way down to the micro-level?

Once again, false. You completely neglect mutation, the fundamental catalyst for evolution. The strong and the weak were there in the first place as the result of mutations. The variation between strong and weak does not disappear as long as mutations occur.

Once again, you give mutations far too much credit. If mutations dramatically affect organisms at the macro-level as you imply they do, then humans 2,000 years ago should be much weaker than those today (Since there must have been countless advantageous mutations in the human race between then and now). If this is not the case for humans, then why would it be the case for any other macro-organism on the face of the earth?

Once again, you're right only if mutations never occur. Not even one mention of mutations in your entire rebuttal, which is sad because the basics of evolution involve mutation combined with natural selection. Natural selection alone is not evolution.

Mutations are your hero, huh? Figuring that most of them are harmful/neutral to the organism, I wouldn’t rely too much on them. This is also not to mention that mutations merely mix-up the genetic information already present. If an organism doesn’t have a four-chambered heart (like humans do), then it’s not going to develop one by a random fluke in the genetic code (It’s far too complex an organ to do so, and must have all of its parts exist all at once properly at the same time or the entire organ will not work). You scream “mutations!” but fail to address the problem of interdependent parts. This is where evolutionists run into the taxing problem of systematic change. Macro-evolutionary changes demand large-scale changes from one type of organism to another. Evolutionists argue that this occurred gradually over a long period. One serious objection to this view is that all functional changes form one system to another must be simultaneous (See Denton, 11). For example, one can make small changes in a car gradually over a period of time without changing its basic type. One can change the shape of the fenders, its color, and its trim gradually. But if a change is in the size of the piston, this will involve simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, and cooling system. Otherwise the new engine will not function.

Likewise, changing from a fish to a reptile or a reptile to a bird calls for major changes throughout the system of the animal. All these changes must occur simultaneously or blood oxygenation will not go with lung development, will not match nasal passage and throat changes, autonomic breathing reflexes in the brain, thoracic musculature, and membranes. Gradual evolution cannot account for this (Geisler, 228). Like I’ve said before on other message boards with you, mutation can only go so far, and then that’s it. Thus the eventual stagnate state of natural selection I spoke of earlier in that topic.

Evolution is the best fit for existing evidence though.

Not really. Besides the problem I described above, it seems another one of evolution’s enemies is the fossil record. Darwin realized this problem when he wrote On The Origins of Species, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be argued against my theory” (Darwin, 280). In the century and a half since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory. Noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” (Gould, 14). Eldridge and Tattersall agree, saying, “Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolution—non-change—has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone’s scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change” (Eldridge, 8).

What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists such as Gould now agree with what creationists from Louis Agassiz to Duane Gish have said all along, that the fossil record includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis: Most species appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless.
Sudden Appearance: In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed (Gould, ibid., 13-14).

Well, you claimed that time is objective and absolute. I asked you if there was anyway to personally tell if time suddenly slowed down by a factor of two. If there isn't, then time is relative and subjective. But.... that is totally unrelated to our discussion. =)

You’ll find I elaborated on the topic of time and its objectivity during my three-post response on the following page of that topic. At any rate, this time, it really isn’t related to the discussion at hand (I merely thought I’d point that out to you).

Jedi: By the way, althought [sic] it might be a bit obscure to the average person, "supernaturalist" is a correctly spelled word. What was wrong about it?

Figuring when you type it in at Webster.com, you get “supernaturalism” instead of the actual word you typed in, it would seem that it’s not a word found in computer-related dictionaries, like the above mentioned dictionary, and Microsoft Word Professional (Although, now that I look at it, “supernaturalist” appears as a variation of the word at Webster.com).

As far as debating goes, I find it interesting how you chose to reply to that and not to the philosophical arguments presented here (Which no atheist has had the ability to thwart).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Jedi
This is forgetting the fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful towards the organism (leading to devolution – the opposite way we want to go). This is also totally omitting the fact that organisms which have undergone mutations tend to not do so well the farther they get from their original genetic make-up.

FYI, most mutations are neutral, not harmful.

Once again, you give mutations far too much credit. If mutations dramatically affect organisms at the macro-level as you imply they do, then humans 2,000 years ago should be much weaker than those today (Since there must have been countless advantageous mutations in the human race between then and now). If this is not the case for humans, then why would it be the case for any other macro-organism on the face of the earth?

Another FYI: Evolution is not about making organisms stronger. It is about making them better adapted to their environment, so they can survive longer and breed more.

 

[Jedi]

FYI, most mutations are neutral, not harmful.

I was about to edit that part of my post and include "neutral" or something along those lines (You just pointed it out before I could. ). My emphasis is that the amount of mutations, which promote a species, is extremely small.

Another FYI: Evolution is not about making organisms stronger. It is about making them better adapted to their environment, so they can survive longer and breed more.

Unless you wanted to say that mutations happened in the human brain (thus making him smarter than he was then and his intelligence a mere by-product of chance, which leads to my philosophical argument further up this thread), my emphasis is on strength or other physical traits that mutations (genetic flukes) could provide to promote survival. Thus far, I have yet to see any difference whatsoever (Even difference in lines of thinking) between humans then and humans now. Odd that would be the case if evolution is the way of life here on earth.

 

[chickenman]

how would you measure the difference in strength between a human now and a human 200o years ago?

I don't think its a very relevant question anyhow, because in terms of the numbers of generations, its not a very long time in evolutionary history

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Jedi
Unless you wanted to say that mutations happened in the human brain (thus making him smarter than he was then and his intelligence a mere by-product of chance, which leads to my philosophical argument further up this thread), my emphasis is on strength or other physical traits that mutations (genetic flukes) could provide to promote survival. Thus far, I have yet to see any difference whatsoever (Even difference in lines of thinking) between humans then and humans now. Odd that would be the case if evolution is the way of life here on earth.

As chickenman said, 2000 years is but a blip on the evolutionary timescale. Besides, periods of rapid evolution are caused by environmental stresses (since organisms evolve in response to their environment). The world is little different from 2000 years ago, hence, we have very little reason to evolve (and we've proven to be quite the successful species, to boot).

 

[Jedi]

I'll respond to you (Pete Harcoff) and chickenman in the same post/quote (I find it interesting how Pete was recorded as browsing this thread for quite some time, but never said anything until chickenman showed up, and even then, he only regurgitated what chickenman said).

As chickenman said, 2000 years is but a blip on the evolutionary timescale. Besides, periods of rapid evolution are caused by environmental stresses (since organisms evolve in response to their environment). The world is little different from 2000 years ago, hence, we have very little reason to evolve (and we've proven to be quite the successful species, to boot).

But mutations happen because of flukes in the DNA - not just because the surroundings demand it happens (I've never seen anyone change their genetic structure at will. As soon as you're able to, please let me know). This is all outside of the realm of genetic manipulation, of course (Since evolution is supposed to have taken place without the interference of man). If mutations happen "all the time," why haven't they done any noticeable changes amongst humans (even over a couple of thousands of years)? These changes would also have to be that of advancement, since not all change is evolution (The deterioration of a species should not be mistaken for advancement merely because there is change happening in the genetic structure of the organism). If no real change has occurred over thousands of years in human history, wouldn’t you call that “stagnant” as far as natural selection goes (since the strong don’t really seem to be getting all these neat advancements mutations have to offer)?

Anyway, I find it interesting how, throughout all of my posts, this is the best thing you evolutionists can try to pick at. This example is moot in light of the rest of the arguments I've presented (Since the arguments support what this example tries to illustrate - the eventual stagnant state natural selection would reach by showing that mutations can only go so far).

On a side note, this topic sure has changed from its original topic of discussion, huh? And I still didn't get a single response from the person I originally replied to. How disappointing.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Jedi
I'll respond to you (Pete Harcoff) and chickenman in the same post/quote (I find it interesting how Pete was recorded as browsing this thread for quite some time, but never said anything until chickenman showed up, and even then, he only repeated what chickenman said).

Oooo, a conspiracy theorist. Besides, it's not like he said all that much.

But mutations happen because of flukes in the DNA - not just because the surroundings demand it happens (I've never seen anyone change their genetic structure at will. As soon as you're able to, please let me know). This is all outside of the realm of genetic manipulation, of course (Since evolution is supposed to have taken place without the interference of man). If mutations happen "all the time," why haven't they done any noticeable changes amongst humans (even over a couple of thousands of years)? If no real change has occurred over thousands of years in human history, wouldn’t you call that “stagnant” as far as natural selection goes (since the strong don’t really seem to be getting all these advancements mutations have to offer)?

Environmental stresses dictating evolution is not the same as an organism "changing their genetic structure at will". Besides, evolutionary theory doesn't claim an organism can change their own genetic structure. They can, however, give birth to organisms with a slightly different genetic structure. As others have said before, evolution occurs in populations not individuals.

And like I said, there haven't been noticeable changes in human evolution in recent history, because there's no need to. We are an extremely successfully species. Yes, I would call that "stagnant" (though we continue to advance in areas of technology and intellect). But that, quite frankly, is how evolution works.

If there was a massive environmental change (say, a sudden global temperature change), we'd see evolution happen a lot faster.

Anyway, I find it interesting how, throughout all of my posts, this is the best thing you evolutionists can try to pick at. This example is moot in light of the rest of the arguments I've presented (Since the arguments support what this example tries to illustrate - the eventual stagnant state natural selection would reach by showing that mutations can only go so far).

Organisms only "stagnate" once they are optimally adapted for their environment. Evolution is still occurring, all the time. Unfortunately, the process is so slow that we can't readily observe it except in very fast-breeding organisms.

 

[Jedi]

Oooo, a conspiracy theorist.

Oh, not really. There’s just something about waiting for someone else to reply and then repeat what they say that I found rather interesting.

Environmental stresses dictating evolution is not the same as an organism "changing their genetic structure at will". Besides, evolutionary theory doesn't claim an organism can change their own genetic structure.

Environment might be able to determine which changes are kept and which are not, but the changes themselves are nothing more than errors in the genetic code. Regardless, such mutations are limited in their ability to give (If, by chance, they do happen to give instead of take, or just do nothing at all).

They can, however, give birth to organisms with a slightly different genetic structure. As others have said before, evolution occurs in populations not individuals.

If evolution doesn’t occur in the individual, how can it possibly occur in the entire population? Anyway, like I’ve said countless times before, mutations can only go so far.

And like I said, there haven't been noticeable changes in human evolution in recent history, because there's no need to. We are an extremely successfully species.

There’s no need to push the mutate button and prevent ourselves from getting sick? What about mutation in ways that we heal faster from injuries? What about mutating to make our memories better? How come our eyes haven’t mutated so that we can see better in the dark? What about mutating in such a way that we are immune to poisons like Poison Ivy, or things of that nature? There’s plenty of need.

Yes, I would call that "stagnant" (though we continue to advance in areas of technology and intellect).

Good, glad we agree. However, I wouldn’t say we are “advancing” intellect. Plato, who lived thousands of years ago, had a lot more intellect than a lot of people today do (Why else would we still look up to him as an example of intellect?). You can’t say people are “dumber” because they didn’t have the same resources to pull from (Plato didn’t have access to all the ideas we do today due to the building on top of ideas called technology). I might know things Plato/Aristotle/Socrates/whoever did not merely because I had access to a better education and more information (If they had been given the same opportunities, I’m quite sure such knowledge wouldn’t have merely gone through one ear and out the other). From reading the reports of historians and literature (as well as apologetics) from people who lived thousands of years ago, the human mind seems to be generally the same in capacity.

If there was a massive environmental change (say, a sudden global temperature change), we'd see evolution happen a lot faster.

If you’re going to start talking about punctuated equilibrium, that idea is contrary to all biological experience and is completely baseless in the scientific world (since evolution is seen to be a slow process that takes gobs and gobs of time). The theory has been criticized because no evidence has been shown for a mechanism of secondary causes needed to make these sudden advances possible.

Organisms only "stagnate" once they are optimally adapted for their environment.

And that would be when mutations have taken the organism as far as possible (They can only go so far).

Evolution is still occurring, all the time. Unfortunately, the process is so slow that we can't readily observe it except in very fast-breeding organisms.

Genetic changes are occurring all the time, but I’d hardly call every single instance of that “evolution.” For something to evolve, it has to advance and become more complex. Mutations are the only things that could possibly do this without any outside interference, and like I’ve illustrated before, mutations can only go so far.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Jedi
And if you’ll look, I posted a three-post reply after you posted (on the following page). I don’t include references when I quote people (at times a disadvantage it seems), but at any rate, I’ll go through your response piece by piece as I always do (as long as it pertains to the subject at hand), since I'm not sure if I saw your post or not before I replied to the comments made in that topic (We could've been working on our replies at the same time and I merely finished and posted after you did).

None of the three posts were replies to the post I linked. Perhaps it as you say and you just missed it. I'm happy that we can address it now. =)

Actually, your understanding of the real situation is flawed. We are moving along the line – we aren’t outside of it so that we can place our finger on the time line where ever (whenever) we want. The thing about time is that you have to start from the beginning and progress from there (since every moment we experience is consecutive – one after another).

If the universe was infinitely old, then there would be no beginning to start from. This is more of a philosophical question than anything else. Although I personally believe that
the universe did have a beginning.

I think it would be nice to also note that, in sum, according to the famous physicist Stephen Hawking, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.)

Great quote. You might find this lecture by him (linked below)interesting as well. If you just read the beginning, it addresses the "2nd law of thermodynamics" you used to bring up, which is something I presume you have wisely stopped doing? http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

You’re losing variety in genetic information (Evolution needs the addition of genetic information – not the loss of it). The weak disappear while the strong remain (you don’t get new “strong.” They merely remain while the weak vanish). Mutations can only go so far (if they actually promote the organism rather than cripple it or neutrally affect it as mutations do the vast majority of the time).

Sigh. Once more, the mutations combined with natural selection (which selecting for positive mutations and discarding negative mutations) does create new "strong" and new variety. Once more, the disappearance of the weak is not a "loss" in terms of evolutionary biology.

This is forgetting the fact that the vast majority of mutations are harmful towards the organism (leading to devolution – the opposite way we want to go). This is also totally omitting the fact that organisms which have undergone mutations tend to not do so well the farther they get from their original genetic make-up.

This is forgetting the fact, repeatedly, that evolution isn't about just mutations, but about mutations combined with natural selection. Harmful genes naturally have a much less probability of being propagated through the population than a positive one. Any mutation that does not help the chances of reproduction of the organism will naturally have a far less chance of being propagated than a mutation that does help increase the probability. It's rather common sense.

Such mutations aren’t as dramatic as you make them out to be at the macro-level. I find it interesting how whenever an evolutionist wants to take the stand of mutations, he runs directly to the micro-level (since the macro-level gives extremely little support). If they dramatically affected the lives of macro-organisms (enabling them to survive better) all the time, why don't evolutionists go directly to this instead of way down to the micro-level?

Because "macroevolution" never happens in the span of just one generation, but rather of many millions. I thought it would be easier to illustrate the process due to your apparent flawed understanding of the fundamental driving forces of evolution. What "macroevolution" really is is just the summation of a great number of instances of microevolution.

Once again, you give mutations far too much credit. If mutations dramatically affect organisms at the macro-level as you imply they do, then humans 2,000 years ago should be much weaker than those today (Since there must have been countless advantageous mutations in the human race between then and now). If this is not the case for humans, then why would it be the case for any other macro-organism on the face of the earth?

2,000 years is just a blink of an eye on the evolutionary time scale. Moreover, we as human beings currently have very little evolutionary pressure on us over the past thousands of years. The right of survival is more or less guaranteed in modern times. But, perhaps if ugly people stopped having children, our progeny will look a lot better than we do in a few thousand years. But that's not very likely as of yet. (joke!)

Mutations are your hero, huh? Figuring that most of them are harmful/neutral to the organism, I wouldn’t rely too much on them. This is also not to mention that mutations merely mix-up the genetic information already present. If an organism doesn’t have a four-chambered heart (like humans do), then it’s not going to develop one by a random fluke in the genetic code (It’s far too complex an organ to do so, and must have all of its parts exist all at once properly at the same time or the entire organ will not work). You scream “mutations!” but fail to address the problem of interdependent parts. This is where evolutionists run into the taxing problem of systematic change. Macro-evolutionary changes demand large-scale changes from one type of organism to another. Evolutionists argue that this occurred gradually over a long period. One serious objection to this view is that all functional changes form one system to another must be simultaneous (See Denton, 11). For example, one can make small changes in a car gradually over a period of time without changing its basic type. One can change the shape of the fenders, its color, and its trim gradually. But if a change is in the size of the piston, this will involve simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, and cooling system. Otherwise the new engine will not function.

Mutations are my hero. I worship them. Along with chocolate, rubik's cubes, and cows.

Remember that article you read recently about the radio receiver that was evolved through evolutionary algorithms? That was an instance of dependent parts that evolved through evolution. There are many complex, dependent parts that are required to make a radio receiver work. Perhaps you might want to read it over again, it really is an excellent illustration of the power of evolution.

Likewise, changing from a fish to a reptile or a reptile to a bird calls for major changes throughout the system of the animal. All these changes must occur simultaneously or blood oxygenation will not go with lung development, will not match nasal passage and throat changes, autonomic breathing reflexes in the brain, thoracic musculature, and membranes. Gradual evolution cannot account for this (Geisler, 228). Like I’ve said before on other message boards with you, mutation can only go so far, and then that’s it. Thus the eventual stagnate state of natural selection I spoke of earlier in that topic.

"Dependent parts" are very possible to be created through gradual evolution. The evolved radio receiver article
(http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992732) was a great demonstration of this fact. "Neutral" mutations, (i.e. mutations that do not affect the chances for survival of an organnism, which, as you now know, represent the majority of mutations) can easily serve as a piece of a group of dependent parts. This is similar to how the "antenna" of the radio receiver was used.

Not really. Besides the problem I described above, it seems another one of evolution’s enemies is the fossil record. Darwin realized this problem when he wrote On The Origins of Species, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be argued against my theory” (Darwin, 280). In the century and a half since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory ... quotes from Hawking and Eldridge

What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists such as Gould now agree with what creationists from Louis Agassiz to Duane Gish have said all along, that the fossil record includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis: Most species appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless.
Sudden Appearance: In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed (Gould, ibid., 13-14).

From the Talk.Origins Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ:

"When The Origin Of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. At that time, the complaint about the lack of transitional fossils bridging the major vertebrate taxa was perfectly reasonable."

"Since then, many more transitional fossils have been found, as sketched out in this FAQ. Typically, the only people who still demand to see transitional fossils are either unaware of the currently known fossil record (often due to the shoddy and very dated arguments presented in current creationist articles) or are unwilling to believe it for some reason."

Here is the big list of transitional vertebrate fossils that have been found in the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

You’ll find I elaborated on the topic of time and its objectivity during my three-post response on the following page of that topic. At any rate, this time, it really isn’t related to the discussion at hand (I merely thought I’d point that out to you).

You didn't have to. When I linked the post that you reply to, I was referring to only the parts that addressed your point about mutations and natural selection (or lack thereof).

Figuring when you type it in at Webster.com, you get “supernaturalism” instead of the actual word you typed in, it would seem that it’s not a word found in computer-related dictionaries, like the above mentioned dictionary, and Microsoft Word Professional (Although, now that I look at it, “supernaturalist” appears as a variation of the word at Webster.com).

supernaturalist

\Su`per*nat"u*ral*ist\, n. One who holds to the principles of supernaturalism.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

It's indeed an American english word, even if you didn't find it in the MS Word dictionaries.

As far as debating goes, I find it interesting how you chose to reply to that and not to the philosophical arguments presented here (Which no atheist has had the ability to thwart).

I replied to the scientific argument in your post. Personally I feel that philosophical debates are by and large a waste of time. No one can really prove anything about their arguments other than that they are good are clever sophistry, and the argument just ends up going in circles.

So that's one of the reasons. The other is that it was pretty funny seeing a [sic] after a perfectly spelled word. I couldn't resist. I apologize if you were offended.

 

[blader]

I couldn't resist interjecting here:

There’s no need to push the mutate button and prevent ourselves from getting sick?

Our life spans have been consistently increasing since recorded history, for one. Also, if we merely let the sick die and the people who are immune survive, then in a few millenia, we as a species would be less susceptible to sickness. However, artificial medicines have now put an end to that evolutionary pressure.

What about mutation in ways that we heal faster from injuries?

Modern medical care practically eliminates that evolutionary pressure as well, for the same reasons as above.

What about mutating to make our memories better?

It's possible, if people who have good memories have more children than people who don't. I don't think that's the case, is it?

How come our eyes haven’t mutated so that we can see better in the dark?

Flashlights.

What about mutating in such a way that we are immune to poisons like Poison Ivy, or things of that nature? There’s plenty of need.

Antihistamines. Benadryl. Most people don't die from poison ivy, last time I checked.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Last post for tonight, then I'm heading to bed.

Originally posted by Jedi
Environment might be able to determine which changes are kept and which are not, but the changes themselves are nothing more than errors in the genetic code.

Yup, you've pretty much got it, right there.

If evolution doesn’t occur in the individual, how can it possibly occur in the entire population? Anyway, like I’ve said countless times before, mutations can only go so far.

Evolution occurs each time an organism successfully breeds. Your original comment about organisms changing their own genetic structure, seemed to imply evolution after birth.

There’s no need to push the mutate button and prevent ourselves from getting sick? What about mutation in ways that we heal faster from injuries? What about mutating to make our memories better? How come our eyes haven’t mutated so that we can see better in the dark? What about mutating in such a way that we are immune to poisons like Poison Ivy, or things of that nature? There’s plenty of need.

What makes you think those things aren't happening? There are people less prone to injury, disease, etc. There are people with better memories than others. There are people who have better night vision than others. Etc, etc, etc. Now, why don't those traits become dominant in the human species? Because there's no survival advantage for having those traits. People with poor memories, poor night vision, and higher susceptibility to injury and disease (to a certain point) still breed. That's why those traits aren't selected for in today's human species.

I might know things Plato/Aristotle/Socrates/whoever did not merely because I had access to a better education and more information

Sorry, I should have clarified. What you said above was my point. Since we can record and pass on information to subsequent generations (therefore, making them "smarter") we advance in knowledge and technology.

If you’re going to start talking about punctuated equilibrium, that idea is contrary to all biological experience and is completely baseless in the scientific world (since evolution is seen to be a slow process that takes gobs and gobs of time). The theory has been criticized because no evidence has been shown for a mechanism of secondary causes needed to make these sudden advances possible.

Care to site some scientific articles or papers that criticize punctuated equilibrium? I'd be interested to read them.

And that would be when mutations have taken the organism as far as possible (They can only go so far).

I'd like to amend "for the organism's particular environment" to your statement.

Genetic changes are occurring all the time, but I’d hardly call every single instance of that “evolution.” For something to evolve, it has to advance and become more complex.

Not necessarily. It merely has to become better adapted for its environment, thus increasing the success rate of the organism breeding.

Mutations are the only things that could possibly do this without any outside interference, and like I’ve illustrated before, mutations can only go so far.

The environment the organism lives in is the outside interference. It is the environment an organism lives and breeds in that shapes its evolution.

 

[Jedi]

If you just read the beginning, it addresses the "2nd law of thermodynamics" you used to bring up, which is something I presume you have wisely stopped doing?

Actually, it still stands up to scrutiny. Philosopher of science Robert Deltete accurately sums up the situation: "There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing." (Robert Deltete, critical notice of Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, Zygon 30 (1995): 656 (the review was attributed to J. Leslie due to an editorial mistake at Zygon).

Sigh. Once more, the mutations combined with natural selection (which selecting for positive mutations and discarding negative mutations) does create new "strong" and new variety. Once more, the disappearance of the weak is not a "loss" in terms of evolutionary biology.

I have yet to see such mutations happen at such a rate or significance in macro-organisms where it actually improves its survival. And even then, mutations have their limits.

This is forgetting the fact, repeatedly, that evolution isn't about just mutations, but about mutations combined with natural selection. Harmful genes naturally have a much less probability of being propagated through the population than a positive one. Any mutation that does not help the chances of reproduction of the organism will naturally have a far less chance of being propagated than a mutation that does help increase the probability. It's rather common sense.

If it’s agreed that natural selection cannot make evolution work on its own, and that mutations have their limitations, then evolution is limited within a species. That’s common sense.

Because "macroevolution" never happens in the span of just one generation, but rather of many millions. I thought it would be easier to illustrate the process due to your apparent flawed understanding of the fundamental driving forces of evolution. What "macroevolution" really is is just the summation of a great number of instances of microevolution.

Where did I say that macroevolution happens in the span of just one generation? You say my understanding is flawed, yet you fail to show how. Macroevolution is unobserved, runs into the serious problems of systematic change, and isn’t supported by the fossil record. To believe in it in light of this would seem nonsensical.

But, perhaps if ugly people stopped having children, our progeny will look a lot better than we do in a few thousand years. But that's not very likely as of yet. (joke!)

An interesting thought.

Remember that article you read recently about the radio receiver that was evolved through evolutionary algorithms?

So that was you, huh?

That was an instance of dependent parts that evolved through evolution. There are many complex, dependent parts that are required to make a radio receiver work. Perhaps you might want to read it over again, it really is an excellent illustration of the power of evolution.

And yet you didn’t respond to the replies of Peter N and me. I wonder why that is...

Here is the big list of transitional vertebrate fossils that have been found in the fossil record.

I’ve learned not to believe everything you read/hear online. Published works seem to be a bit trustworthier. Not only this, but such “findings” counter the words of one of the most powerful voices for evolution of modern times (Stephen Gould). Funny how he would state such quotes as I cited him as stating if he had better options to defend evolution. Being up there with Richard Dawkins and all, you'd think he would have known about such alleged transitional states.

I replied to the scientific argument in your post.

And I just replied to yours.

Personally I feel that philosophical debates are by and large a waste of time. No one can really prove anything about their arguments other than that they are good are clever sophistry, and the argument just ends up going in circles.

A waste of time? I suppose the lives of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were all largely wastes of time then. What poor fellows. Philosophy is my stronger point... a pity no one will take me on there.

Our life spans have been consistently increasing since recorded history, for one.

Due to modern medical technology, for two.

Also, if we merely let the sick die and the people who are immune survive, then in a few millenia [sic], we as a species would be less susceptible to sickness. However, artificial medicines have now put an end to that evolutionary pressure.

Most medicines merely keep the symptoms away (I hear there’s no cure for the common cold). Only specified things like antibiotics actually kill things (or perhaps radiation for cancer). The immune system constantly fights battles all day long in spite of such medicines. Your point’s still valid, though it’s not like modern medicine takes away the need for an immune system (it’s still in the business of keeping out bad things from your body).

As far as the other things go, how does death cause change? Shouldn’t death only be the deciding factor of which changes are kept? If, by modern medicine, more lives are being saved than ever, all such genetic changes (errors in the DNA) should be saved.

 

[Jedi]

What makes you think those things aren't happening? There are people less prone to injury, disease, etc.

And the birth of modern medicine and vaccines don’t have anything to do with this?

There are people with better memories than others.

That says nothing about comparing people of the past. In fact, the people of the past seemed to have more advanced memories than we do today (since oral tradition was very important back then in a lot of cultures, and so memory was essential).

There are people who have better night vision than others.

Humanity’s night-vision seems to be generally the same.

Now, why don't those traits become dominant in the human species? Because there's no survival advantage for having those traits. People with poor memories, poor night vision, and higher susceptibility to injury and disease (to a certain point) still breed. That's why those traits aren't selected for in today's human species.

Sounds reasonable, but it still doesn’t get rid of the problem that mutations can only go so far.

Since we can record and pass on information to subsequent generations (therefore, making them "smarter") we advance in knowledge and technology.

Yes, yes, advancing in knowledge and technology is a given. Intellect, however, is a different matter.

Care to site some scientific articles or papers that criticize punctuated equilibrium? I'd be interested to read them.

Care to point out a credible source that answers the objection that there’s no mechanism to do this? (The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, and In Six Days are two books that don’t favor that theory as I recall)

I'd to amend "for the organism's particular environment" to your statement.

After mutations have taken an organism as far as it can go, environmental variables no longer matter (since its mutated as much as it can).

The environment the organism lives in is the outside interference. It is the environment an organism lives and breeds in that shapes its evolution.

No, no, no. The environment determines if the changes are kept or not, but it doesn’t cause the change themselves (The closest thing the environment can do is to get a reaction of the already present information – like you getting a suntan at the beach. You aren’t evolving; rather your body is acting out on information it already possesses). And even then, like I said, mutations can only go so far. Mutations are nothing more than errors in the genetic information of an organism that are either saved or disposed of by their surrounding environment.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Jedi
Actually, it still stands up to scrutiny. Philosopher of science Robert Deltete accurately sums up the situation: "There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing." (Robert Deltete, critical notice of Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, Zygon 30 (1995): 656 (the review was attributed to J. Leslie due to an editorial mistake at Zygon).

No, actually, it does not. Firstly, you used to bring up the second law as evidence against evolution, not for a caused universed. Secondly, the Robert Deltete quote speaks of quantum theory, not thermodynamics, and is unrelated to evolutionary theory.

I have yet to see such mutations happen at such a rate or significance in macro-organisms where it actually improves its survival. And even then, mutations have their limits.

I notice that you have limited that remark to macro-organisms. That is promising. It is because the lifespan of macro-organisms are many years in length, while the lifespan of populations of micro-organisms can be as little as minutes or hours.

If it’s agreed that natural selection cannot make evolution work on its own, and that mutations have their limitations, then evolution is limited within a species. That’s common sense.

I agree with the first part. Evolution is natural selection along combined with the effects mutations. However, mutations can, (and have!) created new species. Speciation has been observed not only in micro-organisms, but small macro-organisms as well. So your second proposition is incorrect.

Where did I say that macroevolution happens in the span of just one generation? You say my understanding is flawed, yet you fail to show how.

I never said that you said macroevolution happens in just one generation. You asked why evolutionists always go to the micro level instead of the macro level, and I explained why I did so.

You understanding is flawed because you repeatedly raise objections that (whether knowingly or not) omits fundamental parts of evolutionary theory. You repeatedly speak of negative mutations while ignoring natural selection, and claim that the disappearance of weak, negative genes is a "loss." Your words speak for their selves.

Macroevolution isn’t unobserved, runs into the serious problems of systematic change, and isn’t supported by the fossil record. To believe in it in light of this would seem nonsensical.

Well, aside from "macroevolution isn't unobserved," which I agree with, everything else (systematic change/dependent parts, fossil record), I refuted in my previous post.

So that was you, huh?

None other.

And yet you didn’t respond to the replies of Peter N and me. I wonder why that is...

Maybe it's because I can't create a new account rendering my replies nearly unreadable without HTML support.

Or better, it might be because that anyone with a secular viewpoint is summarily censored and banned on that board.

If you or they would like to see replies, then they could come to a board where freedom of speech is respected, like here. But I didn't see much to reply to in your post any way. It was just a dodge that missed the point and dismissed the article by saying "sure evolution works there, but it's not biological."

I’ve learned not to believe everything you read/hear online. Published works seem to be a bit trustworthier. Not only this, but such “findings” counter the words of one of the most powerful voices for evolution of modern times (Stephen Gould). Funny how he would state such quotes as I cited him as stating if he had better options to defend evolution. Being up there with Richard Dawkins and all, you'd think he would have known about such alleged transitional states.

Well before you decide to believe what you read, it helps to read it first. There are references throughout the FAQ to papers published in scientific journals.

Various Creationists have used the quote:
Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." This makes it sound as if Gould was saying that all the evidence is missing. But, that's not what he meant. "Rare" does not mean "nonexistent". A small fraction of millions can still be a large number.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
Source: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/quote_gould.html

A waste of time? I suppose the lives of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were all largely wastes of time then. What poor fellows.

All three of those fellows lived before the advent of modern science. I guess they were trying their best to reach for the truth. But anyway, it shouldn't really matter to you, since according to your beliefs, all three are roasting in Hell as we speak.

Philosophy is my stronger point... a pity no one will take me on there.

I got just the thing for you! http://www.philosophyforums.com/
=)