What would it take?

[Jerry Smith]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I have a question for anyone here who is riding the fence on evolution or who is convinced that evolution isn't true, but is open-minded.

What would it take to convince you? Are there objections in your mind that might go away if they were answered? Have you listened to "Creationist" speakers who have shown you convincing arguments against evolution? Is it just that you haven't seen enough evidence? What would change your mind?

I know that some of you have a commitment to anti-evolutionism, and will never even consider evolution as a possibililty. If you need to debate the answers that are offered to those who ask sincere questions, please do. Please don't just jump in there with any question you think can side-track the thread, though...

I look forward to hearing from some of you...

Jerry

 

[bogomip]

Hi,

I guess I'd like to know how you rationalize out of place/date artifacts if you do indeed believe in evolution.

bh&k,
bogo

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

bogomip, I could not help but notice that you failed to include any examples of out of place artifacts. Oh, and make sure to consult "answersingenesis.com" since they themselves admit that stuff like pulauxy tracks and inca stones are fakes.

 

[bogomip]

Well, ok how about this one for starters.
http://www.therussianissues.com/topics/55/02/04/02/14403.html

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by bogomip
I guess I'd like to know how you rationalize out of place/date artifacts if you do indeed believe in evolution.

Hi. Nice to meet you.

I'm not sure what artifacts you are referring to. If you will give me some examples, I would love to give you my answer. You can be assured that it won't be simply a rationalization, though. I will do my best to give you an accounting for any real data that may seem to you to be contra-indicative of evolution. It may be that the examples you are referring to are not "good data" (meaning accurately documented finds). If that is the case, then I will point out that the finds in question are of suspect and therefore need not be accounted for. Are the out of place/date artifacts you have in mind the main thing that troubles you about the theory of evolution?

 

[bogomip]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


If that is the case, then I will point out that the finds in question are of suspect and therefore need not be accounted for.

This statement pretty much sums up both of our feelings about each other's point of view. Evolutionary theory does not have enough solid evidence to support it. New finds are made very frequently. I heard one on KGO radio about a year ago that places a modern man next to our "ancestors".
I haven't seen an example of evolution; I have seen examples of adaptation however.
So you see by pointing at a rather old skeleton and telling me that it is my ancestor is too much to swallow. Not credible evidence, based on too much conjecture, and using our logic of the day to put together the pieces as if there were a prize at the end of puzzle. The fluid puzzle that changes from year to year based on what is found or not found.
I believe that our Bible is not a calendar nor the complete history of the world. Rather, Testament literally translated means Covenant. This speaks for itself. God did not include the history of the world, nor can you or I discern it with our technology, no matter how compelled we may be.
We can look at ancient artifacts however and enjoy imagining life in the civilizations that were before us.

I can produce more artifacts, for instance what about the Coso Geode?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by bogomip

Well, ok how about this one for starters.
http://www.therussianissues.com/topics/55/02/04/02/14403.html

As far as I can tell, this "ancient map" may just as well be a modern forgery as an authentic artifact. The article you linked to did not give much in the way of references. My suspicion is forgery based on the following some general observations about forged artifacts:

1) It is an isolated find. Whatever ancient technology supposedly produced this stone map apparently left no buildings, pottery, coins or any other artifacts apart from the one map.

2) Suspicious circumstances: Two lone researchers from a fairly obscure university were led to the artifact by a local farmer, who presumably had been just sitting and waiting for an archaeologist to come by. It was shipped off to the local university (according to this account, more on that later), but the University's web-site makes no mention of it or even of the physicist who discovered it. A small University like this would capitalize on such a huge find if it were authentic.

3) No follow up. I could not find any other news article (except an English language Pravda article that is almost identical to the first) that had been published on this artifact. It was supposedly found in 1999: why complete silence until 2002, unless to allow time for the facts to become muddled?

4) The only other resource (Pravda) that mentioned the artifact stated that it had been moved to the University of 'Visconsin' center for Cartography. The website for the University of Wisconsin's Cartography Center does not mention the artifact. Without at least a hint of independent verification, and given the importance of such a find to archaeologists and cartographers in general, one has little choice but to dismiss it as unauthentic until some good evidence is produced and independently confirmed.

5) Little information about dating techniques. The stone apparently would not yield to radiometric dating, so the known ages of certain fossils "on top" of it and "underneath" it were relied on to date the artifact. This certainly does not preclude modern tampering with an ancient stone. It does not even preclude modern tampering with a relatively modern stone.

There you have it. For this particular example, there is nothing to "rationalize" - nothing to account for. There is simply not enough evidence to conclude that this artifact lives up to the claims that are made about it.

But probably, you are thinking about more than one artifact. Some of the others may yield to different means of examination: or to none at all. You may be aware of some that actually falsfy evolution. Bring them out, and lets look at them. If some of them look like a real falsification of evolution, then we will probably have a Nobel Prize coming our way (you get 60% for the find, I get 40% for giving my critical analysis. )

Again, nice to meet you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

bogomip,

Gosh, you are fast. Let me try to answer this one, then it is off to bed..

Originally posted by bogomip



This statement pretty much sums up both of our feelings about each other's point of view. Evolutionary theory does not have enough solid evidence to support it.

So is this what is keeping you from coming around to an evolutionary perspective? If so, stay tuned. I will post a separate thread for you in the a.m. (not tonight, though...bedtime)

New finds are made very frequently. I heard one on KGO radio about a year ago that places a modern man next to our "ancestors".

I'm sorry, unless I know the details of the study you are talking about I cannot explain the apparent contradiction between its putative results and evolutionary theory. As far as I know the only "ancestor" of homo sapiens that lived concurrently with him was homo neandertalis. It is not believed that h. neandertalis was an ancestor of man, though. Its possible you have a case of poor science reporting from a media that isn't scientifically literate.

I haven't seen an example of evolution; I have seen examples of adaptation however.
So you see by pointing at a rather old skeleton and telling me that it is my ancestor is too much to swallow.

If you have seen examples of adaption, then you have, in fact seen examples of evolution. It may not be enough to convince you of the validity of the theory, but it is, in fact the same phenomena. One way to put it is "macroevolution is microevolution writ large". There is certainly a lot more to the evidence for evolution than just an old skeleton and someone's say-so. I will definitely have to start a new thread for you on the evidence.

Not credible evidence, based on too much conjecture, and using our logic of the day to put together the pieces as if there were a prize at the end of puzzle. The fluid puzzle that changes from year to year based on what is found or not found.

Are you sure you have looked at enough of the evidence to be able to judge it "not credible, based on too much conjecture"? Never mind, we will see in the new thread.

I believe that our Bible is not a calendar nor the complete history of the world. Rather, Testament literally translated means Covenant. This speaks for itself. God did not include the history of the world, nor can you or I discern it with our technology, no matter how compelled we may be.

The Bible may or may not be compatible with evolution in every detail. I am more interested in looking at evolution on its own merits than looking at it from the perspective of Biblical exegesis. I think you will find that our technology is more capable than you have previously imagined for understanding natural history.

We can look at ancient artifacts however and enjoy imagining life in the civilizations that were before us.

Yes, we can: But if you mean that is all we can do, well, we will talk about that tomorrow.

I can produce more artifacts, for instance what about the Coso Geode?

It was a spark plug. The "geode" that surrounded it was not even a geode. Someone is pulling your leg...
http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/coso/coso.html

 

[LouisBooth]

I'd need a few things. One of the first is how complex systems "evoloved" when in order for them to work, they must all be developed at once.

 

[Jerry Smith]

bogomip,

as promised, I have started the new thread for evidence here

Let me know if you have any other questions, or would like to discuss more artifacts!

Jerry

 

[Jerry Smith]

Louis,

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I'd need a few things. One of the first is how complex systems "evoloved" when in order for them to work, they must all be developed at once.

Nice to meet you. This is a good question. The simplest explanation is what I call the "scaffolding" effect. For a particular system (I will call it A), there was a time when it was not as complex or as efficient - and it did not require every subsystem that it has now in order to work then. Some of the organisms carrying the less complex system (I will call it A' - A prime) added some "helper systems". As time went on, the helper systems evolved to replace some of the functions that A' required, because they were more efficient than the parts of A' that performed them. Further along the line, A' lost the ability to perform those functions - the ability to do them was no longer selected for, so mutations that made it lose those functions were not selected out. Now A, the resulting system cannot function without the helper systems, and it is "irreducibly complex". That's the short story. For more on "irreducible complexity", check this out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

What other concerns keep you from coming around to evolutionary theory?

 

[Gooch's dad]

Originally posted by bogomip



I can produce more artifacts, for instance what about the Coso Geode?

Why do you keep mentioning this Coso Geode, when we've shown you that it isn't anything other than a 1920's Champion spark plug?

Have a look:

http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/coso/coso.html

As for that 120 million year old 'map'. Yeah, right. You can't date something from shells that are on the surface. Not unless the artifact was found in situ, which it wasn't. The history of the object is completely unknown. The whole story smack of a hoax.

Is that the best you can do? A hoax and a 1920's Champion spark plug?

 

[LouisBooth]

Jerry, that's all well and good, but its pure speculation. That's the problem. We are talking mega complex systems that DO NOT WORK AT ALL unless the whole system is devoloped at once. that's my point. Its not like you can make it less effient (sp). They just don't work at all unless the WHOLE system is in place, that's the problem.

 

[chickenman]

give us an example of this mega complex system

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Jerry, that's all well and good, but its pure speculation. That's the problem. We are talking mega complex systems that DO NOT WORK AT ALL unless the whole system is devoloped at once.

That is the speculation, that since something will not work unless the whole system is in place at once, that it must have all been developed at once or it could never have come to be by natural means. The "scaffolding effect" is an answer to that speculation. Since the "scaffolding effect" is not a theory in its own right, and is merely a logical answer to a logical objection, we need not extensively document it in order to discard the objection. Please see below.

that's my point. Its not like you can make it less effient (sp). They just don't work at all unless the WHOLE system is in place, that's the problem.

The scaffolding effect solves that problem. Before system A became dependent on components X and Y, it did not require them in order to function. X and Y made the system more efficient, so they stuck and eventually A lost the ability to function without them.

X and Y need not have developed at the same time system A did, even though they are necessary for it to function now.

 

[chickenman]

there are good explanations that debunk the "irreducible complexity" argument

 

[LouisBooth]

"That is the speculation, that since something will not work unless the whole system is in place at once, that it must have all been developed at once or it could never have come to be by natural means. "

Exactly. Notice the last part of your explaination. Never have come to be by natural means. I would say you are correct, it was created.

to beleive in the scaffoling effect is to believe in a mathematically impossiblity correct? Since for several complex systems that all interelate have to come into exsistance all at once with the proper surroundings to have them flurish....hmm...So wanna buy some swamp land?

 

[chickenman]

they don't have to come at all at once, thats the point, it can be stepwise, and duplications of large regions of chromosomes can allow the mutation of a large number of genes to form a complex system

 

[TheBear]

If you take ALL of the evolutionary evidence discovered, how well do these so-called out of place/date findings stack up? Do they consist of an overwhelming majority of all findings, do they add up to at least half of the findings, or do they merely add up to an insignificant, miniscule fraction of all findings?

And, how can anyone with a straight face, use science to try to disprove evolution, and in the same breath, deride science?


John

 

[Jerry Smith]

Louis, I'm sorry. I haven't been clear enough. When I said this:

"That is the speculation, that since something will not work unless the whole system is in place at once, that it must have all been developed at once or it could never have come to be by natural means. "

I was referring to the part that is pure speculation... My explanation followed. That was a rephrasing of the speculative objection you made to evolution when you asked how such systems could have come to be. I will rephrase it again, to be clear:

You are saying that because a system must have all parts in place in order to function, all of its parts must have developed at the same time. That is not true, as the scaffolding effect explains...

Again, the real explanation is this:
A system developed that worked fine without some certain parts. Later, those parts were added. Later, the system lost the ability to work without them. Now (in the present), the system cannot function without those parts, but that is only because it lost the ability to perform certain functions without them after they were added on.

Does that help clear things up? I'm sorry for not being clear enough in my first explanation.

Thanks!