RE: My two cents. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

tbull97580 -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 11:18:09 AM)

Ahhahaha. You guys waste no time do you. I wonder what I got myself into.

Alright then how about something simple like the flu. (Influenza) You can see evolution at a fast pace in that species because of the high rate of reproduction. It's also easy to see the results of that evolution from one nasty virus to a new nasty virus. It doesn't mutate to a new strain simply to beat the latest vaccine it simply mutates due to imperfect copying of itself. But anyone can see the result of a new strain/species of the flu when a particularly nasty mutation no longer responds to already developed vaccines. If it's not evolution at work what is it?



hellohellohi -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 11:30:03 AM)

quote:

If it's not evolution at work what is it?


Successive acts of Creation? Just a suggestion, but probably not a popular one. Simply an as yet undiscovered long-created species?

What is the difference between species when it comes to bacteria? The criteria is no longer reproduction (physical propensity to or geographic or physical and genetic ability to), so what is it? Simply based on namable characteristics? I think Method can educate us in this area tho! :)



Aristocrat -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 11:52:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

the Theory of Evolution is being tested, observed and proven, time and time again. Nothing can change that.
I figured you didn't have any real examples of evolution, just more fanciful rhetoric.


I have given you an entire link from Berkley that thoroughly explains the Theory of Evolution to meet the needs of those with even the lowest IQ's.

I thought for sure you'd understand what you read. My bad.



drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 11:53:04 AM)

quote:

If it's not evolution at work what is it?
ADAPTATION! Influenza virus remain influenza virus year after year after zillions of replications every year. Nothing evolves!



drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 11:55:15 AM)

quote:

I thought for sure you'd understand what you read. My bad.
You thought for sure I would glibly accept the imaginative dreams of fanatical naturalists? Yep - your bad!



Aristocrat -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 12:10:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I thought for sure you'd understand what you read. My bad.
You thought for sure I would glibly accept the imaginative dreams of fanatical naturalists? Yep - your bad!


Science can only do its work using our God-given five senses. If that is being a fanatical naturalist then I am guilty. But, mock God for it, He 'created' me this way.



tbull97580 -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 12:32:51 PM)

quote:

ADAPTATION! Influenza virus remain influenza virus year after year after zillions of replications every year. Nothing evolves!


But that is what Evolution is at the most basic level. Surely you understand this unless you’re being intentionally obtuse. H1N1 is just as different from H7N2 as a horse is from a donkey. They may appear to be very similar, and surely they are, but they are no longer the same species. They evolved from an earlier common ancestor but are no longer the same. You want someone to show you a frog turning into a muskrat but a change of that scale simply doesn't happen fast enough to watch happen. I wish every hundred years since the beginnings of life on this planet the living buried their dead in the strata so they could become fossils, but the fact remains that an extremely small portion of life ever ends of as a fossil so their are gaps. Nothing anyone can do about it. We are constantly finding more species but the picture will never be complete. But to sit there and denounce serves no purpose. This goes back to people denying the earth was round. Evolution doesn't denounce God or even say He didn't create man. What it does do is give some insight into the mechanism he used to do it. I also think your statement does a pretty good job of describing how slow the process is. Thank you.



Method -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 2:22:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Thanks for the compliment! True confidence in the Author of Dogma is indeed precious. Unwarranted confidence in the fallible institutions of man is to be pitied.


The author of dogma is you, and your confidence is based on the fallible institution of religion.

Galileo ran into people like yourself, and he paid dearly.



gluadys -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 2:56:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
No, observational experiments show that population can adapt. All the guppies still remain guppies! No evolution has occurred, so do you have another real example, or just more posturing about RM + NS = adaptation.


Ah, here we go again. Basically you have two bees in your bonnet that are simply wrong.

1. Adaptation is not evolution.

Of course, adaptation is evolution. Evolution is what makes adaptation possible.
Don't want to believe this? Provide a mechanism of adaptation that is not identical to evolution. IOW show how species adapt without changing the distribution of alleles in the gene pool.

Changing the distribution of alleles in the gene pool is the essential core of the evolutionary process. If that is what is required for adaptation, then adaptation requires evolution and adaptation is the result of evolution.

2. Species evolve out of what they already are. If guppies evolve they can no longer be guppies. They have to lose all the characteristics which identify them as guppies.

This notion is so wrong that it is actually the opposite of what the theory of evolution teaches. The theory of evolution teaches that no matter how much guppies adapt to new conditions, no matter how much they change, they will always be guppies. There will always be morphological and genetic evidence that forces us to classify the descendents of today's guppies as guppies.

Therefore the failure of guppies to become non-guppies does not mean evolution is not happening. Evolution, in fact, is proceeding as expected.


You will not begin to understand evolution until you can bring yourself to admit that these two ideas of yours are in error and misrepresent the process and the theory of evolution.



evry1needsgod -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 9:15:02 PM)

quote:

First off, Galileo was an astronomer.


First off, Galileo was not exclusively an astronomer. Check out this Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

I chose to use the word "philosopher" because philosophy boarders quite closely to religion and beliefs. You would be better off placing your faith and trust in the infinate knowledge of the Almighty Philosopher, and not a mere man such as Galileo. It's just too bad your faith has settled on your finite knowledge. Truly sad.

quote:

I believe there is a God, but I have been shown empirically that the Theory of Evolution is a fact. Nothing can change that.


This is funny. No, brainwashing has shown you it is fact. This brainwashing most likely started in your high school biology class, where the brainwashing of innocent children begins. Your bias against any science contradicting your faith in evolutionism is a direct result of this brainwashing, and it is THIS BIAS that will not allow you to see the truth. So you're right, nothing can change that, but not for the right reason. I do honestly feel bad for you. You are a victim of mental child abuse, and you have been taught to not think for yourself, and to dismiss all evidence contrary to yours. I'm truly saddened.



drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 10:26:27 PM)

quote:

But, mock God for it, He 'created' me this way.
Your bad again, Aristocrat - Gal 6:7.

quote:

This is funny.
Actually, e1ng, it's rather sad and shows the depth of compromise to which many in the church have fallen when they place the authority of man's "science" above God's Word!



drj11 -> RE: My two cents. (7/17/2008 11:34:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
This is funny. No, brainwashing has shown you it is fact.


Only someone completely and hopelessly brainwashed themselves could believe stories like Noah's ark to be the literal truth, honestly.

quote:


This brainwashing most likely started in your high school biology class , where the brainwashing of innocent children begins.


9/11 was an inside job as well! [8|]

quote:


Your bias against any science contradicting your faith in evolutionism is a direct result of this brainwashing, and it is THIS BIAS that will not allow you to see the truth. So you're right, nothing can change that, but not for the right reason. I do honestly feel bad for you. You are a victim of mental child abuse, and you have been taught to not think for yourself, and to dismiss all evidence contrary to yours. I'm truly saddened.


"Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Every creationist here has failed to provide a single piece of credible, plausible evidence for a young earth that doesn't require miracles... who's really ignoring the evidence?



evry1needsgod -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 12:09:24 AM)

quote:

Only someone completely and hopelessly brainwashed themselves could believe stories like Noah's ark to be the literal truth, honestly.


I sense a copy cat! Sounds an awful lot like what I said. This shows the limit to your intellect.

quote:

9/11 was an inside job as well!


September 11th is not evolution.

quote:

"Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."


Please show me my plank, if you can.



Aristocrat -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 7:24:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

But, mock God for it, He 'created' me this way.
Your bad again, Aristocrat - Gal 6:7.


But you are mocking God when you say that what I see with my own eyes is "imaginative dreams of fanatical naturalists". Nature is what science works with and it requires the five senses because that is how God made us.



BVZ -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 8:46:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

If it's not evolution at work what is it?
ADAPTATION! Influenza virus remain influenza virus year after year after zillions of replications every year. Nothing evolves!


You don't understand evolution. This is made very clear in what you say.

If you actually understood evolution, you would have known that adaptation is the only thing evolution needs to function.

If you start with population A, and it adapts a thousand times, resulting in population B, population A has evolved into population B.

Do you understand now?



gluadys -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 9:21:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

If it's not evolution at work what is it?
ADAPTATION! Influenza virus remain influenza virus year after year after zillions of replications every year. Nothing evolves!


You don't understand evolution. This is made very clear in what you say.

If you actually understood evolution, you would have known that adaptation is the only thing evolution needs to function.

If you start with population A, and it adapts a thousand times, resulting in population B, population A has evolved into population B.

Do you understand now?


More precisely, adaptation needs evolution to function. How does anything adapt without evolving? Every adaptation is a product of evolution, and if, after a thousand rounds or so of adaptation, population A has become population B, that is speciation, a possible consequence of continuous adaptation.



drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 9:36:25 AM)

quote:

Do you understand now?
Oh yes, I understand this to be circular reasoning and semantic gymnastics! Thanks for the reminder.



essentialsaltes -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 10:04:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Please show me my plank, if you can.


Science is predicated on the idea that the best way to understand the natural world is to study the natural world.

YEC is predicated on the idea that the best way to understand the natural world is to read the Bible in a literal fashion; studying the natural world itself is unnecessary. Not just unnecessary, but counterproductive, since it might (and does) lead to conclusions that conflict with a literal interpretation.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is your plank; you use it willfully to screen yourself from evidence that conflicts with your assumption that the Bible is a science textbook.



drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 10:56:13 AM)

quote:

The literal interpretation of the Bible is your plank; you use it willfully to screen yourself from evidence that conflicts with your assumption that the Bible is a science textbook.
And fanatical allegiance to naturalism is your "plank", es. You cling to it willfully to screen yourself from any interpretation of the evidence that conflicts with your assumption that Creator of the universe has no rational information to share. The big difference here is that e1ng and I are willing to admit our assumptions and back them with rational beliefs. You, however, cannot or will not even acknowledge your assumptions much less address them rationally. Basically, you've rejected Lovecraft's motto!



Method -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 12:11:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
First off, Galileo was not exclusively an astronomer. Check out this Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

I chose to use the word "philosopher" because philosophy boarders quite closely to religion and beliefs. You would be better off placing your faith and trust in the infinate knowledge of the Almighty Philosopher, and not a mere man such as Galileo. It's just too bad your faith has settled on your finite knowledge. Truly sad.


Cogent to this discussion is the scientific findings that Galileo made as an astronomer. He dared to disagree with the "Almight Philosopher" as to the placement of the Sun and Earth in the solar system. He paid dearly at the hands of literalists like yourself.

So do you trust the infallible Galileo over the Almighty Philosopher when it comes to the placement of the Sun and Earth?



essentialsaltes -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 12:28:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

The literal interpretation of the Bible is your plank; you use it willfully to screen yourself from evidence that conflicts with your assumption that the Bible is a science textbook.


And fanatical allegiance to naturalism is your "plank", es. You cling to it willfully to screen yourself from any interpretation of the evidence that conflicts with your assumption that Creator of the universe has no rational information to share.


What a strange sentence. I have no need to make any assumptions about the Creator of the universe when evaluating evidence.

Turning things about, how do you interpret the evidence of radiometric dating to determine that the Creator of the universe is sharing rational information?

quote:

The big difference here is that e1ng and I are willing to admit our assumptions and back them with rational beliefs. You, however, cannot or will not even acknowledge your assumptions much less address them rationally.


I'm perfectly willing to admit that the process of science is based on certain assumptions. There is an objective reality. Humans have some capacity to sense this reality. Empirical tests can be used to evaluate hypotheses about reality. Induction allows us to come to (tentative) conclusions about reality. Simpler explanations are to be preferred over complicated explanations, assuming they both agree equally well with the evidence. Do you have a problem with any of these assumptions? What other assumptions am I making to which I am blind?



tbull97580 -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 1:36:44 PM)

The difference though is observed data. No matter which field of science you look at, its independent research tells a different tale than the one you conclude with YEC. If you investigate the universe outside our atmosphere, as astronomy does, you find that it appears much older than the creationists say it is. If you look at chemistry and observe atoms, gases, metals, and atomic decay you also find the data doesn't match that theory either. If you look at the data observed in biology is also tells a different tale than YEC yet again. So which is more accurate? The tale told by YEC or the mountain of observed data from many different fields of science? Did Satan rewrite the entire observable universe to make us doubt God?

Also science does NOT say God didn't make the universe. Do we have it all figured out? Most certainly the answer is no, but we do get closer with each passing day. Science was held at a stand still once and that time is known as the Dark Ages. That is not a time I would like to go back to. Not only was it a stand still but by all accounts it was a regression.



drmark -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 7:57:00 PM)

quote:

What a strange sentence. I have no need to make any assumptions about the Creator of the universe when evaluating evidence.
Of course - the religion of naturalism forbids such behavior!

quote:

Turning things about, how do you interpret the evidence of radiometric dating to determine that the Creator of the universe is sharing rational information?
God's Word clearly indicates two world-wide cataclysmic events which almost surely abrogate uniformitarianism.

quote:

Do you have a problem with any of these assumptions?
No.

quote:

What other assumptions am I making to which I am blind?
Mentioning them again for the umpteenth time will not improve your vision, es.



essentialsaltes -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 8:25:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

What a strange sentence. I have no need to make any assumptions about the Creator of the universe when evaluating evidence.
Of course - the religion of naturalism forbids such behavior!


Good. I'm glad you now agree that, when evaluating scientific evidence, I do not make the assumption "that [the] Creator of the universe has no rational information to share."

quote:

quote:

Turning things about, how do you interpret the evidence of radiometric dating to determine that the Creator of the universe is sharing rational information?
God's Word clearly indicates two world-wide cataclysmic events which almost surely abrogate uniformitarianism.


Well, you didn't answer my question, but you've made it fairly plain elsewhere. You believe the Creator is sharing rational information, because you place faith in the Bible. It has nothing to do with scientific evidence.

Since we both separate scientific evidence from religious dogma, we should both come to the same scientific conclusions when looking at the scientific evidence. But I'm afraid your dogma keeps yapping at you and getting in the way, asserting its primacy over scientific evidence.



gluadys -> RE: My two cents. (7/18/2008 10:37:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
God's Word clearly indicates two world-wide cataclysmic events which almost surely abrogate uniformitarianism.



Since when do cataclysmic events abrogate uniformitarianism?

Are you sure you understand uniformitarianism?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI