This is where this forum falls down.

[FoeHammer]

So how do they go from being seeds to plants? Some gradual changing is involved, yes?

Molecules to man. Same thing, but we're talking a longer period of time.

Evolution is just growth on a much larger scale.

It is not the same thing for, what should be, obvious reasons... ask a fellow evo.

FoeHammer.

 

[Mockingbirdred]

It is not the same thing for, what should be, obvious reasons... ask a fellow evo.

FoeHammer.

It really is, albeit in a simplified form.

An organism grows as it's needs change. A species evolves to adapt to it's environment. As far as fundamental principles go, they're pretty much identical.

 

[Nitron]

It really is, albeit in a simplified form.

An organism grows as it's needs change. A species evolves to adapt to it's environment. As far as fundamental principles go, they're pretty much identical.

Bad analogy is bad.

 

[Naraoia]

Bad analogy is bad.

Seconded.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Take a look at their FAQs.
If you don't see the bias then I can't help you.

FoeHammer.

Like THIS one?

THIS one looks pretty unbiased, what with the References. When you see references you know they are trying to hide something! What can you know about a book like Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology 2nd edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons. 589 pp. ISBN 0-471-86412-9 ...that looks pretty biased, huh?

 

[atomweaver]

How much and what "evidence" for (molecules to man) evolution have you interpreted, in person, that compels you to accept it? You're not going to tell me that you accept it simply because you read it somewhere are you?

FoeHammer.

I've interpreted enough. I've participated in breeding experiments (both plants and animals) which have resulted in speciation.
I've run parent-daughter radioisotope ratio experiments on a mass spectrometer, myself, and know enough about the nuclear chemistry behind it to be 100% certain that our Earth and universe are vastly older than Ussher's geneological estimates predict.
I've handled human artifacts which pre-date any YEC Flood date consistent with Ussher's estimation by a thousand years...
I've seen enough instances of congruity between the predictions of chemistry, physics, geology, and biology where none needs to be, unless they are each accurately modeling reality, to be confident that they are in fact, accurate.

Lastly, I've reproduced enough scientific experiments from original literature (over a thousand, by now) to know that your frothy-lipped claims of rampant bias in science are unfounded. Out of that more than a thousand experiments, only a small handful were not reproducible, and those could be due to either experiental error (mine, or theirs) or bias. Real bias becomes glaringly obvious when you try to reproduce another's results, just ask Hwang Woo-Suk

How much hard evidence have you worked with, yourself?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are definitely different reasons for different designs which while you are not considering them God did.

What are those reasons? Why are our retinas backwards? Why do we have a muscle in our tailbone that spans a fused joint? Why do we have a degenerate caecum? Why don't we have separate tubes for eating and breathing? Why did God put the recreation area so close to the sewage treatment facility?

For one I would never want to kiss a man with Shark teeth AND if we are going to get shark teeth then we need the adjust rest of our body to be like the shark but then, ...we would be sharks not humans.

Why would having multiple sets of teeth require us to be aquatic or even shaped like a shark? That makes zero sense.

Our teeth are like a chimp's teeth. Does that make us chimps?

What I was saying is that shark's continually shed their teeth which are replaced by the ones behind it. They have a literal conveyor belt of teeth. This would be a major help to mammal species, both carnivores and especially herbivores.

No, that doesn't make for a good arguement. A shark is a shark and a human is a human and both are designed just the way they should be.

How so?

 

[Loudmouth]

Within this forum why can't "they... deliver the original evidence"?

Already did, twice. You ignored it both times. Here it is again:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10468595

 

[flatworm]

Yes.


FoeHammer.

I think you are just being obtuse because you have nothing but bias to defend your position with.

All right, first part of the Nicene creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible

What evidence do you have for this? Can you hold it in your hand? How does this evidence compare the evidence the followers of others faiths have for their gods? Do you evaluate their claims in the same way you evaluate the one above?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I've interpreted enough. I've participated in breeding experiments (both plants and animals) which have resulted in speciation.
I've run parent-daughter radioisotope ratio experiments on a mass spectrometer, myself, and know enough about the nuclear chemistry behind it to be 100% certain that our Earth and universe are vastly older than Ussher's geneological estimates predict.
I've handled human artifacts which pre-date any YEC Flood date consistent with Ussher's estimation by a thousand years...
I've seen enough instances of congruity between the predictions of chemistry, physics, geology, and biology where none needs to be, unless they are each accurately modeling reality, to be confident that they are in fact, accurate.

Lastly, I've reproduced enough scientific experiments from original literature (over a thousand, by now) to know that your frothy-lipped claims of rampant bias in science are unfounded. Out of that more than a thousand experiments, only a small handful were not reproducible, and those could be due to either experiental error (mine, or theirs) or bias. Real bias becomes glaringly obvious when you try to reproduce another's results, just ask Hwang Woo-Suk

How much hard evidence have you worked with, yourself?

There is little I like seeing more than a Creationist who tries to misappropriate serious issues within science in order to push an anti-science agenda.

I'm not sure if FoeHammer is doing so in this case, but whenever I see a Creationist level terms like "doubt" and "bias" against science I start off by thinking that indeed, science is seriously in a daily war against "bias" and science works precisely because they are dedicated to limiting "doubt" as much as is humanly and mathematically possible.

But is the doubt really so vast that nothing can be known scientifically? Is bias so horrifically pervasive in science that no data can be trusted? If those are true then we can simply scrap all we know and all that has ever worked for us.

It is argumentum ad absurdum. It is the limiting case of everything in epistemology. And it effectively guts our entire scientific system which has, interestingly enough, served us quite well these past several centuries.

But even if we were to throw this baby out with the bathwater. If we were to gut our society and everything that has built a developed world because we simply can't move beyond our doubt and we fear what bias we see, then what possible good will that do for a religious concept?

If there's doubt and bias in science where doubt is leveraged and bias is quantified and tested for constantly, what about areas like religion where doubt can go unanswered and bias is built-in by merit of personal belief systems?

Why isn't doubt and bias a bigger problem for those who unilateraly decree their intimate knowledge of the Mind of God despite no direct evidence for any of their claims? Is it to their advantage to leverage doubt and bias against science in hopes of gainsaying what science information we have?

 

[tanzanos]

The problem with creationists like Foehammer is that they totally lack any science education; thus are unable to deduct according to the rules laid out by science.

Any evidence given that cannnot be concured by others in the field is deemed not permissible. Any experiment that cannot be reproduced by others in the field is considered unacceptable. God didit or faith can not conform to the said rules thus are not valid arguments against science.

Foehammer; You seem to disregard the fact that science is accepted because it works. Creationism does absolutely nothing. It does not prove anything. It does not offer any evidence, and cannot be falsifiable. The very fact that you are using a computer to communicate with people from all over the world is evidence of the power of science.

May I recommend you take night classes in biology, chemistry, geology, physics; so that you may be in a position to at least have a meaningfull debate?

This said I honestly believe Foehammer to be a TROLL!!!

 

[Inan3]

The problem with creationists like Foehammer is that they totally lack any science education; thus are unable to deduct according to the rules laid out by science.

Any evidence given that cannnot be concured by others in the field is deemed not permissible. Any experiment that cannot be reproduced by others in the field is considered unacceptable. God didit or faith can not conform to the said rules thus are not valid arguments against science.

Foehammer; You seem to disregard the fact that science is accepted because it works. Creationism does absolutely nothing. It does not prove anything. It does not offer any evidence, and cannot be falsifiable. The very fact that you are using a computer to communicate with people from all over the world is evidence of the power of science.

May I recommend you take night classes in biology, chemistry, geology, physics; so that you may be in a position to at least have a meaningfull debate?

This said I honestly believe Foehammer to be a TROLL!!!

According to the "beloved" Wikipedia a troll is:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.

To suggest that FoeHammer is a troll based on his differing opinions with you is missing the mark. It, also, is somewhat egotistical to assume that just because others see things VERY differently than you that the main reason they post is to intentionally bother you. I realize that there is a whole lot of trolling going on but if you will be honest it is on your side of the isle that it is happening. I would even suggest that the very post that I am replying to fits the discription of trolling more so than FoeHammers disagreeing with ToE posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to the "beloved" Wikipedia a troll is:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.

To suggest that FoeHammer is a troll based on his differing opinions with you is missing the mark. It, also, is somewhat egotistical to assume that just because others see things VERY differently than you that the main reason they post is to intentionally bother you. I realize that there is a whole lot of trolling going on but if you will be honest it is on your side of the isle that it is happening. I would even suggest that the very post that I am replying to fits the discription of trolling more so than FoeHammers disagreeing with ToE posts.

Foehammer is a troll because he claims we don't present evidence when we plainly do. It's that simple.

 

[Inan3]

LM's argument wasn't about shark teeth being razor sharp (BTW, not all of them are, see the back teeth of these guys), it was about shark teeth being replaced all the time

I'd be so glad if I never had to visit the dreaded dentist. Just pluck out the bad tooth and grow a new one in no time.

I knew what he meant but regardless if it were left up to us to say this design is right or this would have been a better one we would end up with many differing opinions and designs. If we were going for the multiple teeth design then we would have to design the size and tissue of the human mouth and jaw differently to handle that. I'm sure if LM had to deal with losing a tooth every week for the rest of his life he would be complaining about that design, also. Especially if he swallowed a few at a time. I think that the design for human teeth better fit our lives and lifestyles.

Most sharks have 5 to 15 rows of teeth in each jaw. Unlike human teeth, shark teeth don't have roots to hold them in place, so their teeth are easily broken off. A tooth usually lasts about a week before it falls out. When this happens, the tooth behind it moves up to replace it. A new tooth can be replaced in as little as 24 hours. Sharks keep replacing their teeth all their lives. As the shark grows, its new teeth keep pace and grow larger than the ones that are replaced.
http://www.sdnhm.org/kids/sharks/faq.html#teeth

 

[Inan3]

Foehammer is a troll because he claims we don't present evidence when we plainly do. It's that simple.

Where is that in the definition of a troll?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I knew what he meant but regardless if it were left up to us to say this design is right or this would have been a better one we would end up with many differing opinions and designs. If we were going for the multiple teeth design then we would have to design the size and tissue of the human mouth and jaw differently to handle that. I'm sure if LM had to deal with losing a tooth every week for the rest of his life he would be complaining about that design, also. Especially if he swallowed a few at a time. I think that the design for human teeth better fit our lives and lifestyles.

Perhaps you meant our lifestyle is better suited to the design of our teeth?

That's the whole point around argument from design. Are we "designed" for our teeth or are our teeth designed for us?

The world wasn't designed for us to survive in, we survive in the world because we have evolved to survive in the world. Otherwise we wouldn't be here surviving.

And even then we don't all survive and we don't all survive well.

The Universe is not finely tuned just for li'l ol' us. If anything it is finely tuned to destroy us quickly. There are precious few places in the majority of the universe where we could survive for more than a couple seconds.

As others have said, the universe really appears to be designed for Black Holes.

 

[Inan3]

I think you are just being obtuse because you have nothing but bias to defend your position with.

All right, first part of the Nicene creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible

What evidence do you have for this? Can you hold it in your hand? How does this evidence compare the evidence the followers of others faiths have for their gods? Do you evaluate their claims in the same way you evaluate the one above?

Of course not, because ... We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible!!!!

I don't hold my belief in my hand. I hold it in my heart. The things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal.

God cannot be contained in my hand or otherwise. Heaven is His throne and the earth is His footstool.

 

[Inan3]

Perhaps you meant our lifestyle is better suited to the design of our teeth?

That's the whole point around argument from design. Are we "designed" for our teeth or are our teeth designed for us?

The world wasn't designed for us to survive in, we survive in the world because we have evolved to survive in the world. Otherwise we wouldn't be here surviving.

And even then we don't all survive and we don't all survive well.

The Universe is not finely tuned just for li'l ol' us. If anything it is finely tuned to destroy us quickly. There are precious few places in the majority of the universe where we could survive for more than a couple seconds.

As others have said, the universe really appears to be designed for Black Holes.

Well, it is because presently the Earth was designed for li'l ol' us. Although the rest of the Universe works in harmony with us or we would all die. Just move the sun a little closer or a little farther away.

BTW I meant what I said. I was saying that the design of our teeth better fits our lifestyles than the design of a sharks teeth.

 

[tanzanos]

Where is that in the definition of a troll?

He gave you an answer but! True to all creationist behavior you refuse to acknowledge it!

You proffes to see the LIGHT through your faith by having BLIND faith! So much so that you are blind to anything not justifiable by your faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is that in the definition of a troll?

If Foehammer were genuinely asking for evidence he would stop and look at the evidence. By ignoring the evidence when given he has made it clear that he is only here to get a rise out of people. That is a troll.