The systematic classification of life

[Jet Black]

sometimes it seems more like diffusion. I know alot of stuff but haven't the foggiest how I know it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, both statements are true.

Yes, if you consider the position of many Catholics I would assume that is true.

Funny. That was one of the arguments I used against creationists all of my life.

Funny haha or funny strange?

"Speaking" something into existence is magic. Abra-cadabera = *poof* there it is.

But in your worldview it is not much different. You have no explanation so you just ignore it.

You can surely recognize that it is very possible that if God is real as I profess that He could certainly create this universe. If God is real as I know Him to be then I can see that it is very plausible that He caused the Big Bang that set the universe in motion. This coincides with known principles of the universe.

But in your worldview, there is no evidence what so ever of how the universe came into being. There is a big bang with nothing to cause it. And although I am aware that there are seemingly uncaused events today does not mean that the BB may well be uncaused in the same way. This is assumption and no more or no less in evidence than God is.

I think that is actually the Deist position. Non-Deist theists tend to think that God is still involved.

Agreed.

If you'll take a look at the "Origin of life views" thread, you'll see that I'm not like that.

You do cover a vast arena of possibility. Although, you seem to dismiss most or all of them right? Now I don't imagine there is any possibility that I can remotely influence you to believe this (and I am not really trying to do so) but when you know God exists it makes those other possibilities obsolete.

As a scientist, you are required to limit your explanations to those things which can be tested for, or evidenced in some way, at least potentially.

That is what is suppose to be the case, unfortunately it doesn't always hold up. The conditions that were on earth at its beginning can not be tested and much has been assumed in how the earth's atmosphere must have been. The beginning of life on this planet cannot be "proven" because no evidence exists for that. No one knows how the earth was created, nor the moon or stars or sun for that matter. Everything is speculation when it comes to the beginning of all things. There is a great deal of speculation after the fact as well.

My position is that, (if God were real) you would be able to detect him and indicate him in some objective way.

That may be your position but it does not mean that God must adhere to your preconceived idea of Him.

And I say that because anytime any supernatural anything dips his hand into the prime material plane to effect some physical change, he should pull his ethereal arm out dripping with physics. In other words, even miracles should leave a trace of themselves.

Such as the "brimstone" where Sodom and Gommorrah are believed to be? Such as the walls of Jericho that seem to have fallen inward?

And some supernatural something should have been proven by now: Kirlian photography, full trance mediums, psionics, Transcendental Meditation, past life remembrance, astral projection, ESP, or precognition.

The existance of God does not necessitate any of this.

Yet what have we got? 150,000 dead, and tens of millions homeless because nobody foretold the largest natural disaster in recorded history. All the animals were able to detect something, ultrasonic vibrations perhaps, but not us oh-so-spiritually tuned prophets of oh-so-many gods and ghosts. We went down to the retreated beach without even common sense much less sixth sense, or second sight. What's wrong with that picture?

You think that because God exists He should give us a warning of immenient danger?

This also would seem to be a problem albeit small problem for the materialist worldview. If we are indeed only animals, why did we not have the same detection as shown in the other animals?

As a species, we are so astoundingly in-sensative that things like the Asian tsunami or the twin tower attack always hit us blind and without warning even when get warnings.

That too goes against your worldview. If we are products of an evolved organism that has risen to this position in the world, would we not have keen survival instincts that would be quite the opposite of what we see today? It would seem to me that if evolution alone were the driving factor for our state, we would still have those instincts that are critical for survival.

Yet we somehow manage to make ourselves believe that David Blain has genuine spiritual powers, and that we'll receive a promotion or a new love interest now that Jupiter is in the house of Virgo. On the whole, despite all our genius in the practical world, man is still a metaphysical moron, and definitely not psychic.

I would agree with that.

Absolutely! That's why I was a Taoist for more than ten years. But I always thought that some element of the supernatural had been quantified or qualified to some degree, and that the spiritual (astral) planes and the entities therein were simply another, quite natural dimension working in association with this one. My spiritual beliefs were fairly complex and (I think) well-considered.

What caused you to believe otherwise?

I also thought that at least some of them had legitimate backing. When I realized they didn't, at all, and that no one else's did either, then I reluctantly had to resign myself to materialism.

This seems very vague and I am not sure what you mean by legitimate backing. Could you explain please.

I would be interested to hear it. That would probably give me an opportunity to explain my special brand of Taoism.

The one that you have left behind or is there a new improved version?

There is always some element of the unknown, no matter what we're talking about. But I think we have so much evidence of common descent as to be perverse to deny that these tiers of similarities really do mean what they seem to.

I think that we do have evidence of evolution. I think that we have elements that appear to be a certain way that allow us to catagorize those elements.

You are not an animal because men devised some arbitrary and therefore meaningless system of classification. You are an animal because you are descended from animals. And I think that's been proven about as solidly as anything ever could be.

I think that there is very strong evidence that we did evolve from lesser organisms, I think that there is evidence that man was in a lesser form prior to Adam. I believe that Adam was the first Spiritually created man. I think that there were humans prior to and during Adams life that were outside this spiritual line. I have no more proof or evidence that you do. In fact, the evidence you use for your worldview I feel supports mine.

That is true, and there are other examples as well; the exact taxonomic position of aardvarks as the most primitive of all living hooved animals for example. But remember what I said before, about science slowly bringing the image of reality into focus. Everytime we have to make some minor change, we're improving our knowledge even further. And its clear that we're still seeing what Darwin detected through the blur of 19th Century understanding.

Exactly!! That is what I am trying to get you to recognize. We are looking back in time and depending on our worldview we are "interpreting" what we are seeing. As we learn more scientifically, we bring more into focus. But what we see sometimes fits with our overall worldveiw and at other times it does not. This happens on the secular/materialist view as well as the theists. When it comes to Creation/Evolution one must on both sides of the fence see that both are based on interpretation and speculation. I am not in this thread trying to disprove evolution per se but to show that within this worldview there is a foundation built on assumption and speculation not so unlike any area of ideology. Yes, there is a great amount of evidence in this area but much of this is based on assumptions based on assumptions. They may be true assumptions, I am not actually claiming they are false but I am just trying to point this out.

I am unaware of any of these occasions ...except perhaps for one.

I've read a paper on this and I think that I can probably find it on the net. I'll try.

Or are you talking about subjectivity in lieu of sufficient evidence? For example, I always believed that birds were dinosaurs. Now the world at last agrees due to the many transitional species that have since been found in that line so far. Similarly, I always believed that scorpions were descended from Eurypterids, where most paleontologists still don't. But I managed to present a good enough case that some systematists now think I'm right; that both scorpions and arachnids are both nested, (separately) within Eurypterids, and that scorpions should be nested among Mixopterecean eupterids specifically.

Yes, I am. But the sufficient evidence sometimes is as subjective as is the hypothesis in some cases. But the fact remains that this is still a system in the works and it seems to be more and more problematic as more is discovered.

But (as I said) we still lack one critical intermediate in that line to make my position conclusive.

But that is true of some many lines. There are very few actual "common ancestors" in evidence. We see lines upon lines of decents but we don't have the elusive "common ancestor" in most cases.

So the Big Bang was the creation event. All the laws of the universe were already set,

What do you mean already set?

and everything in existence was designed to look like it didn't need a designer.

I think that actually rests within the worldview one holds.

God is a master of hiding his handiwork. Not the kind of thing one would expect from someone who is allegedly vain and jealous.

Again more to do with worldview rather than anything else.

Why not?

This seems to be miscommunication with the fault being mine. I was referring to the flagellum itself and you were speaking about the position itself. But in my comment to your post that is what was implied. So I apologise for not being clear. The flagellum's construction is the change I was speaking about.

What if you didn't knock out anything? What if (as I said before) the flagellum in this case merely pushes instead of pulls?

You are making a valid point on what you felt was my question but my question was unclear, as I have provided in my response the direction in which I had intended to go.

I mean, I could cite many more structural difficulties with growing legs out a fly's head. But we've already proven that can happen with a single alteration. So a flagellum on the "rear" of a cell that doesn't even have a front or back to begin with should be no problem at all.

Above.

Don't forget this one important detail: We know mutations exist. We have no reason to imagine that a god does. Why do you postulate unexplained and unproven mechanisms? This makes your position equivelent to saying; "this doesn't happen, but let's insist that it does anyway." Let's keep things in their proper perspective.
...including "Goddidit." The trick is, can we come up with an explanation that is still probable without having to postulate any forces or phenomenon which have never been observed, and can neither be verified nor adequately defined in any way? Which are therefore likely imagined, and believed only on faith anyway?

But it doesn't make it true either. Probable does not mean true nor does it even imply evidence. I don't expect Science to include God. I think that we must always go in the direction of questioning the how of everything. I don't want anyone to "leave it to God". I want to know how God did it . So I am not trying to change the direction of Science. Science is fine when it sticks to Science but when Scientists then try to make religious statements that is when I take issue.

Yes it is. Flagellum are just elongated cillia, remember?

It is an appendage of cillia. Just as an arm is an appendage of a human. We would not say that an arm was just an elongated human correct?

All we did was duplicate one of several types of mutation that are known to occur naturally, albeit very rarely.

Yes, but we had the information to produce the mutation that was a natural occurance. We could not have produced it without knowing the specifics first.

Granted. If it were probable, it would have happened more often. But it is certainly possible. And what is improbable in one generation may be inevitable in a billion generations.

Possible and probable do not mean factual. That is what I am getting at.

 

[kingreaper]

sometimes it seems more like diffusion. I know alot of stuff but haven't the foggiest how I know it.

I seem to get that kind of thing too

When someone asks me how I learnt something I pick randomly from " I read it somewhere" "I saw a program on it" "Someone mentioned it" and " I have no idea

Maybe when I'm your age I'll know as much as you

 

[Loudmouth]

Agreed.
You do cover a vast arena of possibility. Although, you seem to dismiss most or all of them right? Now I don't imagine there is any possibility that I can remotely influence you to believe this (and I am not really trying to do so) but when you know God exists it makes those other possibilities obsolete.

There is not one scientific method that can tell us whether God exists or not, therefore no scientific interpretation directly involves God. Until God is detectable through scientific means, science is not able to use God as an exmplanation.

That is what is suppose to be the case, unfortunately it doesn't always hold up. The conditions that were on earth at its beginning can not be tested and much has been assumed in how the earth's atmosphere must have been.

False. We can test the rocks that were around during earth's early history. For example, the occurence of iron pyrite on the surface of the old earth, as well as other indicators, tell us that oxygen was not present in any significant concentration early in earth's history. There are ways, and those interpretations are testable, potentially falsifiable, and entirely scientific. Nothing is assumed, only testable theories supported by all the evidence are allowed to exist within science.

The beginning of life on this planet cannot be "proven" because no evidence exists for that. No one knows how the earth was created, nor the moon or stars or sun for that matter. Everything is speculation when it comes to the beginning of all things. There is a great deal of speculation after the fact as well.

True, but what evidence do we have? At first, there is no evidence that life exists. The very first life that occurs is very simple, unicellular life. Over time, organisms become more and more complex resulting in the biodiversity we see today. The only natural means for getting simple life is through chemistry. No other means have been scientifically shown to exist.

That may be your position but it does not mean that God must adhere to your preconceived idea of Him.

God doesn't have to adhere to man's interpretation of Genesis, either.

You think that because God exists He should give us a warning of immenient danger?

This also would seem to be a problem albeit small problem for the materialist worldview. If we are indeed only animals, why did we not have the same detection as shown in the other animals?

Who says we don't?

Exactly!! That is what I am trying to get you to recognize. We are looking back in time and depending on our worldview we are "interpreting" what we are seeing.

This is patently false. Worldview has nothing to do with constructing a scientific explanation. A scientific interpretation must be testable, potentially falsifiable, and must explain ALL of the data. No matter your worldview, your interpretation must fit those criteria. Science does away with worldviews and instead relies on objective evidence. Your interpretation that Adam was the first "spiritual" being is not testable, not falsifiable, and therefore is not acceptable as a coherent interpretation.

Yes, there is a great amount of evidence in this area but much of this is based on assumptions based on assumptions. They may be true assumptions, I am not actually claiming they are false but I am just trying to point this out.

Nothing is assumed in science. Everything is based on testable and falsifiable theories.

But that is true of some many lines. There are very few actual "common ancestors" in evidence. We see lines upon lines of decents but we don't have the elusive "common ancestor" in most cases.

The evidence for common ancestory is very strong. This is in no way weakened by the lack of identified common ancestors. This is what this whole thread is about, the nested hierarchies of related characteristics. The only theory that can currently explain this pattern is common ancestory.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Funny haha or funny strange?

Funny ironic.

"Speaking" something into existence is magic. Abra-cadabera = *poof* there it is.

But in your worldview it is not much different. You have no explanation so you just ignore it.

Our perspectives are enormously different. I do have an explanation, and you are ignoring that. My explanation is that life, according to what I have seen myself, and heard explained, by a Christian professor, is that the structure of life is mere chemistry at its most fundamental level, and that it is possible for life to arrange itself. The explanation is that simple chemicals lead to polymers, some of which are replicative. We know of a few that are like this, so there is a precedent. Replicating polymers are the core componant of the Hypercycle hypothesis, which is what is believed to have lead to protobionts, and then of course to full-scale life. That explanation may not have a lot of proof at the moment. But its got a lot more evidence than you perspective does. You have no explanation at all, and instead use the excuse that it must be magic.

You can surely recognize that it is very possible that if God is real as I profess that He could certainly create this universe.

No. That's too many assumptions compiled atop other assumptions, and none with any other basis. First, you have to show me that this magic invisible ghost is even an option to be seriously considered.

If God is real as I know Him to be then I can see that it is very plausible that He caused the Big Bang that set the universe in motion. This coincides with known principles of the universe.

Except that you don't really know God is real. Everyone says they "know" their god is real, even when it is mutually-exclusive of everyone else's gods. Not all of them can be right at the same time, yet they are all just as convinced as you are. If they can be deceived by their belief, then so can you be.

But in your worldview, there is no evidence what so ever of how the universe came into being. There is a big bang with nothing to cause it.

I always thought it was a dimensional rift, rather like the string theorists now propose. That would be a cause.

And although I am aware that there are seemingly uncaused events today does not mean that the BB may well be uncaused in the same way. This is assumption and no more or no less in evidence than God is.

I'll grant you that, if you'll remind yourself of the fact that there are fewer theists in cosmology than in any other scientific field, except possibly biology.

You do cover a vast arena of possibility. Although, you seem to dismiss most or all of them right?

I try to keep an open mind. But obviously no two of these can be true at the same time.

Now I don't imagine there is any possibility that I can remotely influence you to believe this (and I am not really trying to do so) but when you know God exists it makes those other possibilities obsolete.

Which is why your post-name is so amusing to me, Stilldeceived.

As a scientist, you are required to limit your explanations to those things which can be tested for, or evidenced in some way, at least potentially.

That is what is suppose to be the case, unfortunately it doesn't always hold up. The conditions that were on earth at its beginning can not be tested and much has been assumed in how the earth's atmosphere must have been. The beginning of life on this planet cannot be "proven" because no evidence exists for that.

Not true. There is some speculation in the formation of hypotheses. But there are also circumstances which can be tested for in various ways:

If (__) is true, then by extension, (__) would be true also. At the same time, (__) could not be true.

You make a logical analysis of what should be, given a certain circumstance, and then you test for that. That's what the Miller-Urey experiment was all about. Now why don't you show me where or how the same deductive process can be applied to creationism? And don't forget to supply any potentially-falsifiable hypotheses that were proposed by creationists, and evidence in support of their position. .

No one knows how the earth was created, nor the moon or stars or sun for that matter. Everything is speculation when it comes to the beginning of all things. There is a great deal of speculation after the fact as well.

Yes, and about the only thing that is certain is that the Genesis account is just speculation also, and that however the Earth formed, it wasn't the way the Bible said.

That may be your position but it does not mean that God must adhere to your preconceived idea of Him.

He would have to if his very existence or involvement in anything were logical.

And I say that because anytime any supernatural anything dips his hand into the prime material plane to effect some physical change, he should pull his ethereal arm out dripping with physics. In other words, even miracles should leave a trace of themselves.

Such as the "brimstone" where Sodom and Gommorrah are believed to be? Such as the walls of Jericho that seem to have fallen inward?

No, I'm talking about something of substance. Traditionally, men speak of historic places and events, (especially tragedies) and over time, they tend to embellish their stories by adding mythic elements to them. Look at the story of Troy for example.

I know that in the 1930s, Helenist archaeologists were still searching for Troy in an attempt to vindicate their religion. But even if they found the place, and even if they found remains of a giant wooden horse, that still wouldn't prove that Poseidon played any part in the city's demise. And that's the sort of assumption you're making as well.

I would look for evidence of miracles, things like the Tower of Babel, or the global flood. But since we know for a fact that both of these stories are wrong, as is the creation myth, then I doubt anything we find in Jericho is likely to make me believe in your wholly improbable, at least partially mythical god.

And some supernatural something should have been proven by now: Kirlian photography, full trance mediums, psionics, Transcendental Meditation, past life remembrance, astral projection, ESP, or precognition.

The existance of God does not necessitate any of this.

But God is a supernatural element. Validation of anything from the realm of the supernatural would at least lend plausibility to other supernatural things.

You think that because God exists He should give us a warning of immenient danger?

What good is prophesy if it never does this?

This also would seem to be a problem albeit small problem for the materialist worldview. If we are indeed only animals, why did we not have the same detection as shown in the other animals?

Dogs and elephants are capable of hearing ultrasonic frequencies which we cannot. I think you'll find that the other apes can't hear these frequencies either.

As a species, we are so astoundingly in-sensative that things like the Asian tsunami or the twin tower attack always hit us blind and without warning even when get warnings.

That too goes against your worldview. If we are products of an evolved organism that has risen to this position in the world, would we not have keen survival instincts that would be quite the opposite of what we see today? It would seem to me that if evolution alone were the driving factor for our state, we would still have those instincts that are critical for survival.

If you want to keep your survival senses, you'll need to live in an environment which will hone them. You're talking about picking up ultrasonic vibrations when we live next to train tracks and freeways, in shelters surrounded by electric fields and loud volumes on all kinds of artificial noise, and where we often even ignore the gunshots outside the window. We're not in-tune with anything anymore.

On the whole, despite all our genius in the practical world, man is still a metaphysical moron, and definitely not psychic.

I would agree with that.

No you don't. You think a giant universal deity is whispering subliminal messages to you.

I always thought that some element of the supernatural had been quantified or qualified to some degree, and that the spiritual (astral) planes and the entities therein were simply another, quite natural dimension working in association with this one. My spiritual beliefs were fairly complex and (I think) well-considered.

What caused you to believe otherwise?

I don't think you're ready to read my autobiography right now. Suffice it to say that at some point I realized that some of the things I believed could only be supported if I read certain things to the exclusion of others. I had to make a choice. Do I deliberately blind myself to the things that challenge my beliefs? Or do I investigate those things, as well as my beliefs, even if there is a real risk that they'll turn out to be wrong? One by one, every last item that ever provided any kind of support for any spiritual belief I ever had, ever in my life, all eventually turned out to be either pschological delusions or deliberate frauds.

This seems very vague and I am not sure what you mean by legitimate backing. Could you explain please.

The final straw was Kirlian "spirit" photography. When I was a boy, I was innocently deceived by what I thought was a legitimate science documentary, one that showed evidence of life force, metaclorian astral form of the soul. They showed a leaf on a plate being photographed by a special process. The image of the leaf, inlcuding all the little veins and textures in it, appeared as a glittering mass of tiny phospherescent blue sparks. This was said to be the trace energy produced by electrical fields within the leaf. Most of us know that life generates electricity, so I followed along for the second half of the demonstration, which was to cut the leaf in half, and photograph it again. At first, the image showed the half-leaf just glittering like before. But then, on a slighter longer exposure, the other half of the leaf slowly appeared. This, I thought, was adequate demonstration that all living things weren't merely chemicals reacting, but that there was some other componant to life, some etherial "water" to make our clay malleable. Life was the junction of two planes, and death was their separation. Like clay drying out, our "dust" would return to the Earth. But our souls, our transcendental, astral selves, would evaporate out, to be recombined with the universal Dharma, the cosmic oneness, the Tao. This all made sense to me, (especially after Star Wars came out) and it seemed quite likely given the evidence. Everyone I ever knew to that point, and for many years after believed in all kinds of paranormal activities and entitites, and this idea of mine seemed to accomidate them all, even reincarnation, and past-life remembrance. It also occured to me that if this were true, that men wouldn't have been able to interpret their perceptions of it correctly, and that would explain the various religions dedicated to gods.

Everyone touting any belief at all tends to claim that they "know" theirs is "absolute truth", and often they say theirs "scientifically proven". But I didn't realize that yet. Nor did I even suspect that anyone would ever televise a documentary full of information they knew to be untrue. (PAX TV does that a lot.) But I was too naive not to believe what a seemingly logical narrator explained with lots of seemingly convincing evidence.

As evidenced by our national magazines, almost none of the laity in this country really knows much of anything. For all our egocentric arrogance, most of us are impressively ignorant, if not just plain stupid. And almost everyone believes in supernatural things, mostly because everyone else does. So whenever I mentioned Kirlian photography, no one ever knew what I was talking about, and I learned not to be surprised at that, whatever the subject was. But then I found myself on Talk.Origins, and through them, in on-line conversations with many professional scientists of various fields. Suddenly, whatever I said, I found out had always been wrong. And this was especially harsh when I brought up Kirlian photography, and found out that it, and the show which presented it, were both deliberate hoaxes no more reliable than the stories in the Weekly World News.

At about that time, I read an article where Leonard Nimoy admitted that virtually nothing in his In Search Of series was true, and that in fact he was the Art Bell of the 1970s.

That would probably give me an opportunity to explain my special brand of Taoism.

The one that you have left behind or is there a new improved version?

I have left it behind. Once I finally realized what faith really meant; believing something highly improbable for literally no reason at all, I reacted with shock. That's why I dove into these type forums. Surely if there was any reason to believe in anything supernatural, someone in these forums will be able to provide it, and someone else won't be able to shoot it down so easily. That was five years ago. And no one has ever given me any reason to believe in anything "spiritual" except for a love of nature itself. And all my own paranormal experiences, which were so profound, and which still seem so real to me today, I now know never really happened. It took me a long time to realize that because I was just as deceived as you are, and for the same reason.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think we have so much evidence of common descent as to be perverse to deny that these tiers of similarities really do mean what they seem to.

I think that we do have evidence of evolution. I think that we have elements that appear to be a certain way that allow us to catagorize those elements.

Then perhaps Lilly and Jay shouldn't just sit back and let you speak for them. Perhaps Novanight1 or A4C should have joined in.

I think that there is very strong evidence that we did evolve from lesser organisms, I think that there is evidence that man was in a lesser form prior to Adam. I believe that Adam was the first Spiritually created man. I think that there were humans prior to and during Adams life that were outside this spiritual line. I have no more proof or evidence that you do. In fact, the evidence you use for your worldview I feel supports mine.

You have no evidence, zero, that Adam ever existed. I have considerable evidence that he did not. The Adam character in Genesis is a composite of four different stories, each involving different characters, and none of which ever actually happened, or could have.

its clear that we're still seeing what Darwin detected through the blur of 19th Century understanding.

Exactly!! That is what I am trying to get you to recognize. We are looking back in time and depending on our worldview we are "interpreting" what we are seeing. As we learn more scientifically, we bring more into focus. But what we see sometimes fits with our overall worldveiw and at other times it does not. This happens on the secular/materialist view as well as the theists. When it comes to Creation/Evolution one must on both sides of the fence see that both are based on interpretation and speculation.

If that were true of both sides, then I would see it. I don't interpret evolution to be a fact of biology. I can demonstrate that it is. At best, one might say that scientists interpret evidence, and test whatever speculation arises from that. Theists only interpret their own speculation and refuse to challenge or test it. I know you won't see that, but it is true.

I am not in this thread trying to disprove evolution per se but to show that within this worldview there is a foundation built on assumption and speculation not so unlike any area of ideology. Yes, there is a great amount of evidence in this area but much of this is based on assumptions based on assumptions. They may be true assumptions, I am not actually claiming they are false but I am just trying to point this out.

The only real assumption is that reality is really real. That's the only assumption we don't bother to question. Your perspective however is devoid of any evidence at all, opposed by all the evidence there is, and based on naught but assumptions of assumptions, none of which have any confident probability of being true, and many of which are already for certain not to be.

Or are you talking about subjectivity in lieu of sufficient evidence?

Yes, I am. But the sufficient evidence sometimes is as subjective as is the hypothesis in some cases.

Such as?

But the fact remains that this is still a system in the works and it seems to be more and more problematic as more is discovered.

Less and less so, as I see it. Being ever more intracately detailed does not equate to being problematic. What are you talking about?

But (as I said) we still lack one critical intermediate in that line to make my position conclusive.

But that is true of some many lines. There are very few actual "common ancestors" in evidence. We see lines upon lines of decents but we don't have the elusive "common ancestor" in most cases.

Cladistics doesn't name common ancestors. In taxonomy, there is in fact only one common ancestor which is known for certain, and that is Homo erectus, ancestor of H. sapiens, H. neandertalensis, and H. floresiensis. Otherwise, cladists prefer to cite the clade itself as the source of the ancestry, which is what this thread is meant to demonstrate.

So the Big Bang was the creation event. All the laws of the universe were already set,

What do you mean already set?

Things like thermodynamics, chemistry, gravity, and physics already exist. For some reason, a lot of the believers I've debated with believe that 2+2 can't equal 4 unless God wills it to be so.

and everything in existence was designed to look like it didn't need a designer.

I think that actually rests within the worldview one holds.

Obviously not, or else you would be able to show it to me, and I wouldn't be able to attribute it to something else instead.

Honestly, I long believed that if there was any evidence of God, it would be found in the incredible intricacies of cellular biology. But none of the world's most knowledgeable experts in that field have ever discovered it. In fact, the world's foremost expert in this, the Nobel laureate who actually discovered DNA, recently wrote the following:

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."
--Dr. Francis Crick;
The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul

God is a master of hiding his handiwork. Not the kind of thing one would expect from someone who is allegedly vain and jealous.

Again more to do with worldview rather than anything else.

The only relevant part of my worldview here is that I think words should have meanings, and that statements should be true. Someone who is jealous and vain wouldn't try so hard to make his best work look like an accident, especially when that being is so desperate for praise.

The trick is, can we come up with an explanation that is still probable without having to postulate any forces or phenomenon which have never been observed, and can neither be verified nor adequately defined in any way? Which are therefore likely imagined, and believed only on faith anyway?

But it doesn't make it true either. Probable does not mean true nor does it even imply evidence.

Probable doesn't need to imply evidence. It wouldn't be probable if there wasn't evidence already.

I don't expect Science to include God. I think that we must always go in the direction of questioning the how of everything. I don't want anyone to "leave it to God". I want to know how God did it .

But if you're going to question the how of everything, then you should be asking IF God did it.

So I am not trying to change the direction of Science. Science is fine when it sticks to Science but when Scientists then try to make religious statements that is when I take issue.

Then I suggest we restrict the religious comments in this thread, which is supposed to be dedicated to the explanation of a particular scientific field.

It is an appendage of cillia. Just as an arm is an appendage of a human. We would not say that an arm was just an elongated human correct?

Get ready to post another "blush" smiley.

"A cilium (plural cilia) is a fine projection from a eukaryotic cell that constantly beats in one direction. They are structurally identical to eukaryotic flagella, and the terms are often used interchangeably."
--Wikipedia

All we did was duplicate one of several types of mutation that are known to occur naturally, albeit very rarely.

Yes, but we had the information to produce the mutation that was a natural occurance. We could not have produced it without knowing the specifics first.

So?

Possible and probable do not mean factual. That is what I am getting at.

Possible and probable are a damned site more likely factual than impossible and improbable. That's my point.

Now if you don't mind. I'm still waiting for you, Jay, or Lilly to post their answer to my last taxonomic question in message #36, so that this thread may continue, unless you no longer have any contentions against the concept of common ancestry, or your taxonomic place therein.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is not one scientific method that can tell us whether God exists or not, therefore no scientific interpretation directly involves God. Until God is detectable through scientific means, science is not able to use God as an exmplanation.[/Qoute]

I would agree. I was stating my personal position.

False. We can test the rocks that were around during earth's early history. For example, the occurence of iron pyrite on the surface of the old earth, as well as other indicators, tell us that oxygen was not present in any significant concentration early in earth's history. There are ways, and those interpretations are testable, potentially falsifiable, and entirely scientific. Nothing is assumed, only testable theories supported by all the evidence are allowed to exist within science.

Very true, but you can only surmise that which is present in those indicators and we do not know what elements may have been present that are not represented in them.

True, but what evidence do we have? At first, there is no evidence that life exists. The very first life that occurs is very simple, unicellular life. Over time, organisms become more and more complex resulting in the biodiversity we see today. The only natural means for getting simple life is through chemistry. No other means have been scientifically shown to exist.

I agree totally. Creation is not in conflict with this in my estimation either.

God doesn't have to adhere to man's interpretation of Genesis, either.

I agree as well. But we as Christians have to adhere to Genesis to interprete Creation.

Who says we don't?

Well Aron-ra for one.

This is patently false. Worldview has nothing to do with constructing a scientific explanation. A scientific interpretation must be testable, potentially falsifiable, and must explain ALL of the data.

I would disagree. There are differing opinions in all areas of Science between Scientists. Some for instance have thrown out gradual evolution for PE some feel both are more accurate and so on. Views can be held that differ holding the same "evidence" between very knowledgable and honest Scientists.

No matter your worldview, your interpretation must fit those criteria. Science does away with worldviews and instead relies on objective evidence. Your interpretation that Adam was the first "spiritual" being is not testable, not falsifiable, and therefore is not acceptable as a coherent interpretation.

As there is no specific evidence for evolutions one common ancestor for human kind.

Adam being the first spiritual being is not testable or falsifiable but I am not trying to claim that He is; Or even that He existed for that matter. I am claiming that Creation in my position does not conflict with the known facts of the world.

Nothing is assumed in science. Everything is based on testable and falsifiable theories.

That is false. There are assumptions that have circumstancial evidence that supports those assumptions but they are assumptions just the same.

The evidence for common ancestory is very strong. This is in no way weakened by the lack of identified common ancestors.

Of course it is. That doesn't mean that common ancestory is wrong or that it isn't supported by great amounts of supportive conclusions but it does weaken it somewhat.

This is what this whole thread is about, the nested hierarchies of related characteristics. The only theory that can currently explain this pattern is common ancestory.

That is available currently is a very important aspect to what I am saying here.

 

[time]

There is not one scientific method that can tell us whether God exists or not, therefore no scientific interpretation directly involves God. Until God is detectable through scientific means, science is not able to use God as an exmplanation.

Therefore there is not one scientific method that can tell us whether God does not exist or not! Since you admit there is not a single scientific interpretation directly that involves God-shouldn't that tell you something? It's no accident! It's downright anti God! So, Until God is detectable through scientific means science will HAVE to shamefacedly admit it is of comically limited ability thus far!

False. We can test the rocks that were around during earth's early history. For example, the occurence of iron pyrite on the surface of the old earth, as well as other indicators, tell us that oxygen was not present in any significant concentration early in earth's history

I too am interested in a pre flood world. Seems like all you are hinting at here though is that when God made the ball, or planet, before man, and beast was made, the conditions were such that there was little oxygen. (Or at least according to our current understanding)

The very first life that occurs is very simple, unicellular life. Over time, organisms become more and more complex resulting in the biodiversity we see today

Just because the fossil record is rife with 'simple' ex-lifeforms does not mean they were the "first" things that lived! When the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, things began to happen right quick! So quick, why, in a week you wouldn't have recognized the place!

A scientific interpretation must be testable, potentially falsifiable, and must explain ALL of the data. ...

Actually the known quantity of God, angels, spirits, and I guess the supernatural in general need not be explained, apparently at all! Those grains of sand which science has it's little head buried in are all that count?! Forget the rest!

Nothing is assumed in science. Everything is based on testable and falsifiable theories.

Hmm. I think people are a little smater than to swallow that!

The evidence for common ancestory is very strong. This is in no way weakened by the lack of identified common ancestors. ...

Seems like it's not a disagreement there were common ancestors, but who they were and where they came from.

 

[Lilandra]

Now if you don't mind. I'm still waiting for you, Jay, or Lilly to post their answer to my last taxonomic question in message #36, so that this thread may continue, unless you no longer have any contentions against the concept of common ancestry, or your taxonomic place therein.

I want you to know that I am following what you are saying, So far trying to convince me the taxonomically I am descended from a worm because I have a mouth, teeth, and am bilateral just ain't cuttin it my friend. It's superficial not causal evidence.


I know that may be very frustrating for you to hear. i am not really upset so don't get riled.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I want you to know that I am following what you are saying, So far trying to convince me the taxonomically I am descended from a worm because I have a mouth, teeth, and am bilateral just ain't cuttin it my friend. It's superficial not causal evidence.

What in the world is "causal" evidence?

I'm not asking you to believe you are a worm. At this time, I'm asking if you believe you are a chordate. And I want you to understand what that means.

As an organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid bilaterally-symmetrical, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate, would you agree that you are accurately classified within the taxonomic phylum, Chordata based on the fact that you also have a spinal chord? Bare in mind, that a spinal chord is not all that is required to be a chordate. You have to meet all of these criteria at once to be a chordate!

Just give me a yes or no. But if you say "no", would you mind explaining why? Because what I am explaining is definitely not superficial. Its fundamental. In fact, it doesn't doesn't get any more fundamental than this!

 

[Loudmouth]

Therefore there is not one scientific method that can tell us whether God does not exist or not! Since you admit there is not a single scientific interpretation directly that involves God-shouldn't that tell you something? It's no accident! It's downright anti God! So, Until God is detectable through scientific means science will HAVE to shamefacedly admit it is of comically limited ability thus far!

Science only excludes one more god than you do. Will christianity have to admit it's comically limited ability because it does not include the Greek, Roman, and Hindu pantheon?

Science is areligious, not anti-religious.

Just because the fossil record is rife with 'simple' ex-lifeforms does not mean they were the "first" things that lived! When the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, things began to happen right quick! So quick, why, in a week you wouldn't have recognized the place!

Then perhaps you can point me to the evidence that has bunny rabbits coming before bacteria in the fossil record? Sorry, but all of the evidence points towards bacteria being alone in the world millions of years before multi-cellular life came around.

Do have objective evidence that I can test using science that supports the Spirit of God moving over the faceof the waters? Do you have testable, objective evidence that the world was created in 6 days? Hmm, didn't think so.

Actually the known quantity of God, angels, spirits, and I guess the supernatural in general need not be explained, apparently at all! Those grains of sand which science has it's little head buried in are all that count?! Forget the rest!

If these entities were affecting the natural world in a quantifiable, predictable manner they would be part of science. Unfortunately for you, they do not. If science did not stick to these rules, invisible aliens and pink unicorns could as easily be substituted for any natural mechanism as the christian God. Is that what you want?

Nothing is assumed in science. Everything is based on testable and falsifiable theories.

Hmm. I think people are a little smater than to swallow that!

Prove me wrong. Name one unsupported assumption that is used in science today. As another poster mentioned, the only assumption in science is that reality is real. Also, nothing in science is ever held as absolutely true. All conclusions and theories are tentative.

 

[Lilandra]

What in the world is "causal" evidence?

The similarities between the worm you were speaking of and humans (bilateral, mouth, chordate)does not necessarily mean that humans evolved from a creature like this worm.

Here is a quote from a website detailing the difficulties of looking back in time and finding a causal relationship to support an argument.


http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/markport/comp/comp2/fall2002/10causal.htm

Causal argument underlies two of the most common, challenging, and difficult questions we confront in our lives: “Why?” and “What if?” When paleontologists consider the reasons why dinosaurs became extinct, when historians debate the causes of a war, when environmentalists speculate on the effects of pollution, and when psychologists study the effects of racism, they are working in the realm of causal argument. That is, they are examining the complex process by which people, forces, events, and other phenomena interact to bring about other phenomena. Although some people may speak of proving a causal connection between two things, causal argument is by its very nature highly speculative and prone to mistakes. Part of the difficulty, as any scientist can attest, lies in isolating variables. In other words, when examining the many factors that may have caused an event to occur or the many effects that may be traced back to a cause, we must be careful to determine exactly which ones really are valid. Take, for example, the apparently simple case of the Civil War. Anyone who has studied this conflict knows that slavery was an important issue that divided the northern and southern states. In the three decades preceding the Civil War, however, America also was experiencing a number of other important phenomena: social upheaval, migration and immigration, technological changes, and even an economic panic. How can we prove that it was slavery and not one of these other factors that caused the war? The answer is that we can’t. Indeed, as in other kinds of argument, we rarely can prove our causal claims definitively.

I'm not asking you to believe you are a worm. At this time, I'm asking if you believe you are a chordate. And I want you to understand what that means.

As an organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid bilaterally-symmetrical, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate, would you agree that you are accurately classified within the taxonomic phylum, Chordata based on the fact that you also have a spinal chord? Bare in mind, that a spinal chord is not all that is required to be a chordate. You have to meet all of these criteria at once to be a chordate!

Just give me a yes or no. But if you say "no", would you mind explaining why? Because what I am explaining is definitely not superficial. Its fundamental. In fact, it doesn't doesn't get any more fundamental than this!

 

[Aron-Ra]

The similarities between the worm you were speaking of and humans (bilateral, mouth, chordate)does not necessarily mean that humans evolved from a creature like this worm.

Oh yes, well, you're right of course. There is a microscopic possibility that we were created by magic instead. This possibility is just slightly less probable than the one where all reality is a lie, and the Matrix controls our perception of the universe. But assuming that reality is really real, then we evidently have evolved. Because there is no other explanation for these combined teirs of fundamental similarity.

And somehow you forgot to answer the question I asked you. So here it is again. As an organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome, coelemate, would you agree that you are accurately classified within the taxonomic phylum, Chordata based on the fact that you also have a spinal chord in addition to exactly matching every other criteria required for that taxon simultaneously?

As you implied, there may be some trivial difficulties in establishing my position in this discussion, and in getting you to accept it. But I will overcome those difficulties. So please, just give me a yes or no. But if you say "no", remember to explain why. Because what I am explaining is as fundamental as anything related to you ever will be.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To my knowledge, it does. I mean, there are no protist fossils I am aware of. This determination was based on the probability of a single inherited trait versus an identical mutation happening independantly in several related lines simultaneously. But what fossils we do have, (including microfossils) do align with the claims of this position. What geologic evidence did you know of, which indicates something else?

What I remember is that there was discrepancies in the fossil record but I am unsure of the whole position. It was an article that was using a Molecular clock to aid in reconciling the discrepancy. It was a study done in France if I remember correctly. I will look online when I have time and see if I can find it.

I didn't imply that. Genesis did.

No, it didn't.

Correct. But that would still mean that the Bible is incorrect in how that was done.

No, it doesn't.

Dictyostellium aren't known from the fossil record. They still exist today, and can be observed to behave this way. And they very much resemble the type of thing we would expect to have the transitional stage from single-celled to multicellular organisms.

Is this not assumption/speculation?

No. There are facts; (things which can be quantified, qualified, and/or objectively demonstrated to be true) and there is truth; (an honest statement which is also accurate). But there is no such thing as "absolute" truth, meaning; any claim which "sacred", (beyond question).

So you feel that your existence is no absolute?

I say you choose not to see it because it is plainly and inescapably obvious that an adult gorilla's head is pronouncedly different than a humans' where a baby gorilla's head is not so profoundly different from that of our own children

Ah, I apologize for being a little slow here.

The proportions of the crest and the brow, and the extension of the jaw, the length of the arms, and all that can be easily measured revealing that baby gorillas resemble people more than adult gorillas do.

I wasn't thinking about that aspect of appearance. I can of course see the difference with the crest and that it is not as prominent in their young. I concede that point for sure.

Either you choose not to see this or you're not very perceptive. I went with the least insulting option.

The truth is even more insulting if you had used it.
True but insulting.

Anthropometry: the study of human body measurement for use in anthropological classification and comparison.

Got cha.

The last of the baby "monkeys" was actually a chimpanzee. But it wasn't wearing anything, and still had many proportions that resemble those of human children more than the adults of their species would.
No it isn't. Like the apes in my examples, each of these monkeys look similar to humans in some slight way, as babies, where they do not retain that semblance in adulthood. The second to the last one (for example) was a baboon. Those are profoundly different as adults, and don't even look like monkeys anymore! But as infants, even these otherwise almost lion-like things still have some human-like qualities. All these are measurable in clearly-objective metric increments, so it is not mere opinion. If you need to, (just as Jet Black said) we can go over the details of each of these measurements to prove that, which is something we couldn't do if it were only an opinion.

I agree.

In my opinion, there is no better job than to be a scientist. And most people seem to think that marine biology is the best option in any field. In the excellent documentary, Blue Planet, one of their scuba divers lept from a low-flying open-cockpit ultralight aircraft trainer, and dove into the ocean next to a 100 foot-long, 140 ton blue whale. Compare that to your current job!

I could not jump from any aircraft!! I am horribly afraid of heights. I even went on the tower in Paris but the whole time I shook and felt like I was going to be sick. But the beauty of the place was totally awesome. I was glad I did go up.

I do want to see a whale in nature...so bad. Someday perhaps.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now if you don't mind. I'm still waiting for you, Jay, or Lilly to post their answer to my last taxonomic question in message #36, so that this thread may continue, unless you no longer have any contentions against the concept of common ancestry, or your taxonomic place therein.

What is this thread exactly? Are you wanting this just for a vehicle to present your view or do you want input from us? It seems you are getting impatient having to answer anything other than the one question you are putting to us in each post. Do you want us to just keep to your one question format or do you want some actual exchange here? Before I answer your other response to my response I will wait to hear what direction this is to take.

As far as Consideringlily and others, I am not "speaking" for them as they can most certainly speak for themselves. Consideringlily had felt that what I said earlier represented her viewpoint at the time and only at that time. I am sure that should they wish to articulate their viewpoint in the future I will have no bearing on that at all.

 

[Aron-Ra]

But creation does not necessitate specially and separtely created organisms as you have implied.

I didn't imply that. Genesis did.

No, it didn't.

Yes it did. And it couldn't have been more clear about that.

that would still mean that the Bible is incorrect in how that was done.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

The Bible contradicts itself on many points. It says there were men and women on the 6th day, but that after the 7th day, there somehow still wasn't a man to till the ground. And that guy didn't get a female until after he named every animal alive at the time, so we're talking about a lot more than one day going by before Eve came around. Contradictions galore. There is no indication that the other life forms are interrelated except that God "allowed the Earth to bring them forth". Even then, the Bible got the order of progression wrong. They couldn't have come about in that order unless they were specially-created. But also, let's not forget that Adam himself was a mud golem; the dust of the Earth, plus 98% water, and then the "breath of life" schtick taken from every other creation myth already told at that time. So he definitely wasn't related to anything else on Earth. Eve wasn't either since she was made out of him. He was sculpted and she was cloned. That definitely counts as "special" creation! You can't make a female clone with male donor cells, but then you can't have a male born from a parthenogenic birth either. God is made of magic and can do what he wants. That's always the excuse. The point is that neither the "man-of-the-red-dirt" nor his rib are related to anything else in the Biosphere in any way. They were created separately. It may be gray where the origin of some of the other life-forms are concerned, but according to this story, all the humans alive today are supposed to be descended from a statue and his clone, both of which are very definitely specially and separately created non-organisms that shouldn't bare any resemblance to animal life except by sheer coincidence.

Dictyostellium aren't known from the fossil record. They still exist today, and can be observed to behave this way. And they very much resemble the type of thing we would expect to have the transitional stage from single-celled to multicellular organisms.

Is this not assumption/speculation?

I don't assume anything except hypothetically. And I don't consider anything which is directly-observed to be speculation. This proves there is a precedent for these forms, and for this behavior. Besides, as to whether the common ancestor of opisthokonts was similar to this, your word still doesn't apply because it refers to an opinion based on conjecture, inconclusive evidence, or supposition. But there isn't any other explanation that matches all the data in every field overlapping this one. And all the relevant evidence available from every related field points to this one answer exclusively. So no, I could not call that speculation.

So you feel that your existence is no absolute?

That is true. If I didn't really exist, how would I know it? And what difference would it make from my perspective if I wasn't really real? Because if I'm not real, then the things I effect in this world aren't real either, and I may as well be living in the matrix again. But even if I was just the dream of a sleeping god, or a brain in a jar living an illusion, that illusion was still clearly built upon a structure of rules meant to emulate some reality. And those rules still apply to me exactly as they would if I were real. Reality is clearly real, at least from the perspective of all the other beings interacting with me in this "reality". So there is no reason to assume that reality isn't real, (myself included) especially since we still exist in some capacity whether we're real or not. So there's no reason or practical gain in questioning our existence. Every other assumption I make however should be treated with scrutiny.

 

[Aron-Ra]

What is this thread exactly? Are you wanting this just for a vehicle to present your view or do you want input from us? It seems you are getting impatient having to answer anything other than the one question you are putting to us in each post. Do you want us to just keep to your one question format or do you want some actual exchange here? Before I answer your other response to my response I will wait to hear what direction this is to take.

I want your input, definitely; Lilly's and Ray's too. Don't get me wrong about that. But I am trying to follow a course here, which I don't wish to see stalled, derailed, or abandoned. You're giving me an opportunity to do something I've been trying to do since I was eleven years old. But it won't do me any good to pursue this if I can't be sure that you understand and accept what I am telling you along the way.

To explain my purpose in this thread, let me show you what I typically see from the creationist camp about 97% of the time, and which seems to represent the position of an alarming percentage of Americans. Recently, I ran across a post from an author I will not name who said the following:

"Variation is different from Evolution. Variation is like a fresh-water animal adapting for life in sea-water. A minor difference compared to Evolution. A turtle to a snail is Evolution."

Now, students of science and other knowledgeable people have tried to correct this person. But of course the poster won't change his or her position even when they know its wrong, because he/she will not consider what anyone else has to say. Is there any chance that the author of this ridiculous tripe could be so brain-bendingly stupid as to believe his comment is true? And that all the "evolutionists" are wrong about what they themselves believe? Or is he instead purposefully lying with full knowledge and intent, and doesn't give a damn what evolution really is?

Either way, it defines the whole problem with this supposed "contraversy" since the beginning. This quote is indicative of both the stupidity, and the rampant, deliberate dishonesty inherent throughout most of the creationism movement in America, and this appears to be equaled by those who are functionally illiterate, undereducated or completely ignorant, grossly (and blissfully) misinformed, and who are driven by emotional, sensationalist paranoia over any interest in anything like truth. Normally, even those I know and respect evasively refuse to explore this issue at all, and admit that it would require too much reading to do so. In many cases, they even admit that they would rather believe as they do (which they do as an act of will) than accept the truth if it were anything else. So it appears to me that the whole anti-evolution movement, including the Scientologists, the Raelians, and those still marketing Intelligent Design "theory", -are all about willful ignorance and false witness. Not one among them has ever dealt with me without ducking and dodging every one of my points and challenges, only to associate me with devil worshippers or Nazis when the subject matter gets too much for them.

So when I find someone who appears to have some accountability, and who can actually concede some small error on occasion, I want to seize that as an opportunity to correct the biggest error I see amongst all the anti-evolutionists at once. NONE of them have any understanding of taxonomy, the topic of this thread. I don't believe it would be possible to remain a Biblical literalist creationist if you knew this subject as well as I do. Most of the opposition in this case believe instead in "goo to you", "molecules-to-man", "frog to a prince", "a turtle to a snail", or some other intentional obfuscation, [out-and-out lie]. I want to see if it possible to discuss this with a creationist who does not have these sorts of distortions poisoning her perspective, and to see if there is any contention against my position that isn't wholly dependant upon misrepresentations like the one quoted above. Because to my experience, an honest creationist is a rare and temporary condition, and I know of several ex-creationists who say the same. I'm testing that with this thread. Plus, no one ever seems to have explained in this depth on a board like this before, and that really needs to be done.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Thanks for probably the most interesting thread I have read here, also your thoughts are very lucid and insightful. Reps to you!

 

[Oncedeceived]

I want your input, definitely; Lilly's and Ray's too. Don't get me wrong about that. But I am trying to follow a course here, which I don't wish to see stalled, derailed, or abandoned. You're giving me an opportunity to do something I've been trying to do since I was eleven years old. But it won't do me any good to pursue this if I can't be sure that you understand and accept what I am telling you along the way.

You have wanted to do this since you were eleven years old? Hey man, go for it.

To explain my purpose in this thread, let me show you what I typically see from the creationist camp about 97% of the time, and which seems to represent the position of an alarming percentage of Americans. Recently, I ran across a post from an author I will not name who said the following:

"Variation is different from Evolution. Variation is like a fresh-water animal adapting for life in sea-water. A minor difference compared to Evolution. A turtle to a snail is Evolution."

The problem lies in the incredible mass of information that you are trying to convey. Although you have presented the information in a very readable and concise manner you have a relatively limited perspective being shown. That isn't your fault because of the volume of data that you can not possibly address in a format such as this. You may get your point across which is valuable in itself but to reach the conclusions you seem to want to reach seems somewhat daunting and may be unreachable. We will see.

Now, students of science and other knowledgeable people have tried to correct this person. But of course the poster won't change his or her position even when they know its wrong, because he/she will not consider what anyone else has to say. Is there any chance that the author of this ridiculous tripe could be so brain-bendingly stupid as to believe his comment is true? And that all the "evolutionists" are wrong about what they themselves believe? Or is he instead purposefully lying with full knowledge and intent, and doesn't give a damn what evolution really is?

I assume that you really don't want my opinion and if you do you of course know I won't give it.

Either way, it defines the whole problem with this supposed "contraversy" since the beginning. This quote is indicative of both the stupidity, and the rampant, deliberate dishonesty inherent throughout most of the creationism movement in America, and this appears to be equaled by those who are functionally illiterate, undereducated or completely ignorant, grossly (and blissfully) misinformed, and who are driven by emotional, sensationalist paranoia over any interest in anything like truth. Normally, even those I know and respect evasively refuse to explore this issue at all, and admit that it would require too much reading to do so.

I always feel that those who are functionally illiterate, undereducated and (no one is completely ignorant) should be given some slack. But I also think that it isn't due to the ignorance of evolution that is at the root of the problem; moreso I think it is a fear of it. There is a fear of the unkown, the fear of maybe being wrong and losing one's faith. You are a movie buff so I'll use one to illustrate what I mean. In the movie Indiana Jones and the last Crusade, there is a point where Indiana needs to step off the cliff into an abyss and once he takes the step there is solid footing albeit unseen when looking down.

This is what I see with many creationists. They are standing on the cliff and are to afraid to step out in faith. That is what faith is all about. It is not believing in something because of faith alone but believing something because you know with faith that it won't evaporate into nothingness if you take that step out. Faith does not need to be blind and it does not and can not be in fear.

In many cases, they even admit that they would rather believe as they do (which they do as an act of will) than accept the truth if it were anything else.

I think this is because of the fear I just spoke about.

So it appears to me that the whole anti-evolution movement, including the Scientologists, the Raelians, and those still marketing Intelligent Design "theory", -are all about willful ignorance and false witness. Not one among them has ever dealt with me without ducking and dodging every one of my points and challenges, only to associate me with devil worshippers or Nazis when the subject matter gets too much for them.

As long as you don't grow any horns we are good to go.

So when I find someone who appears to have some accountability, and who can actually concede some small error on occasion,

Freodin take note.
And thank you Aron-ra for the vote of confidence.

I want to seize that as an opportunity to correct the biggest error I see amongst all the anti-evolutionists at once. NONE of them have any understanding of taxonomy, the topic of this thread. I don't believe it would be possible to remain a Biblical literalist creationist if you knew this subject as well as I do.

Let's hope that you can be open minded enough to entertain the possibility that a Biblical literalist can remain honestly so even with information and an understanding of taxonomy. Let us also hope that you will be open minded when I bring forth my viewpoint. Okay?

Most of the opposition in this case believe instead in "goo to you", "molecules-to-man", "frog to a prince", "a turtle to a snail", or some other intentional obfuscation, [out-and-out lie]. I want to see if it possible to discuss this with a creationist who does not have these sorts of distortions poisoning her perspective, and to see if there is any contention against my position that isn't wholly dependant upon misrepresentations like the one quoted above. Because to my experience, an honest creationist is a rare and temporary condition, and I know of several ex-creationists who say the same. I'm testing that with this thread. Plus, no one ever seems to have explained in this depth on a board like this before, and that really needs to be done.

Then I am most honored in being one of those who are helping you to do so.

I smiled a lot more in this but had to remove them to get it to accept this post. Sheesh can't even smile around here.

 

[Lilandra]

Though that is not the input Aron Ra wanted, I just wanted you to know that because of the difficulty of drawing causal relationships from the distant past I have difficulty drawing conclusions the common ancestor theory. I reserve judgement like I do with what happened with Noah's Flood. Though I don't have a problem drawing a conclusion that the Flood did not shape world geology in one fell swoop. But because of some hints in the story that it is not an allegory (like instructions on building the Ark) I think that maybe there is some truth to the story although maybe not the way others interpret it.