Jump to content


Photo

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#81 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 December 2010 - 12:05 AM

Ok, since it appears so difficult to answer what I assummed was a simple question, I will rephrase it. you stated

"
Just like in Mathematics, you have a bell curve. There will always be outliers.

In the same respect, there should always be some outliers for evolution, ie- there should be some individuals / populations that show macro-evolution... This should occur in all species, so it shouldn't be too hard to find at least a handful, or even one. "

So given that you would expect, if evolution was true, to witness it in individuals, what would you regard as evidence if you did witness it i.e. what is it that you are not seeing and would expect to see that makes this evidence that evolution does not occur? Can you give a single example of what, if you observed it in an individual, would make you say 'ok, that does fit with evolution'.

View Post


Dude I did answer your original question, which was this... Post 80

"Hi Gilbo, you cut the relevant context out of that quote. My question remains, it is a simple one, Do you believe that evolution should be observable in a an individual?"

I replied with this.... Post 81

"I didn't cut anything relevant out, if you feel otherwise please show me what and how it changes what I quoted yu saying.

Evolution should be observable. Mutations occur in individuals, hence it should be observed on the individual level, as well as the population level as well, (since natural selection only acts on populations) "

You then twist it to whatever you and Ron were saying.... Post 82

"Let's bring this back - in the context of the post I was responding to, Ron claims that because he does not witness macro evolution in individuals, it does not exist. No-one makes any claims that an individual will change species, which is what I was querying. Mutation happens to individuals - cancer is an obvious example, and is observable, but changes in species does not occur in an individual. The question remains... "

To which I replied... Post 83

"You just changed MY response to YOUR question posed to ME, into something between you and Ron. My response incorporates both individuals and populations, please don't change it to fit something else and then ask the question again."


Your original question addressed to ME in post 80. Had nothing to do with your discussion with Ron.. You didn't mention anything about Ron, just if evolution should be observed within individuals.

Now you are postualting an entirely new question as your original question... I am not a fan of word games, please don't take me for a fool.

To answer this NEW question of yours. I'll ask it to you, can YOU show us a case of observed evolution to become a new species, since YOU are the one who believes it occurs. I am not here to give you evidence of something I don't believe in.

#82 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 December 2010 - 05:36 AM

  I have not mentioned abiogenisis, and at no point has it come up during our sub-topic (nor was in mentioned in the OP).

View Post


foxnsox, the below is the definition of abiogenesis. And it is taken directly from “MY” OP:

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro” evolution):

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural” chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences” for this is presupposed and contrived.

View Post


If you feel the need to continually equivocate on the subject, by ignoring the OP, then you may wish to peddle your wares elsewhere. Time wasting, trolling and equivocating are not appreciated here. So I might suggest your taking a look at:

http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm


I have asked you a simple yes or no question to try to clarify your position. I can only assume you are trying to duck giving a clear answer, in which case I would be forced to assume that your purpose is not one of knowledge, but one of spreading doubt and confusion.

View Post


The above is a prime example of the ad Hominem abusive with an attempt at supporting it with the False Dilemma logical fallacy.

**Mod Hat on** foxnsox this is a warning for your continual attempts of trolling, equivocation, and misrepresentations. Read the forum rules, that you agreed to prior to coming here, before you make another post.

#83 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 December 2010 - 07:17 AM

Dude I did answer your original question, which was this... Post 80

"Hi Gilbo, you cut the relevant context out of that quote. My question remains, it is a simple one, Do you believe that evolution should be observable in a an individual?"

I replied with this.... Post 81

"I didn't cut anything relevant out, if you feel otherwise please show me what and how it changes what I quoted yu saying.

Evolution should be observable. Mutations occur in individuals, hence it should be observed on the individual level, as well as the population level as well, (since natural selection only acts on populations) "

You then twist it to whatever you and Ron were saying.... Post 82

"Let's bring this back - in the context of the post I was responding to, Ron claims that because he does not witness macro evolution in individuals, it does not exist. No-one makes any claims that an individual will change species, which is what I was querying. Mutation happens to individuals - cancer is an obvious example, and is observable, but changes in species does not occur in an individual. The question remains... "

To which I replied... Post 83

"You just changed MY response to YOUR question posed to ME, into something between you and Ron. My response incorporates both individuals and populations, please don't change it to fit something else and then ask the question again."
Your original question addressed to ME in post 80. Had nothing to do with your discussion with Ron.. You didn't mention anything about Ron, just if evolution should be observed within individuals.

Now you are postualting an entirely new question as your original question... I am not a fan of word games, please don't take me for a fool.

To answer this NEW question of yours. I'll ask it to you, can YOU show us a case of observed evolution to become a new species, since YOU are the one who believes it occurs. I am not here to give you evidence of something I don't believe in.

View Post


Gilbo,

foxnsox is basically trolling, and nothing more.

#84 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 December 2010 - 07:37 AM

Gilbo,

foxnsox is basically trolling, and nothing more.

View Post


Thanks Ron, yeah I agree with you there

#85 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 December 2010 - 09:00 AM

The answer to the OP is quite simple. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed in a population, or an individual.

Therefore the correct answer for the evolutionist would be: Yes I have faith that Macro-evolution occurs, because I have never ever observed it happening.

Unless anyone has actually observed Macro-evolution in an individual or a population, then the above is the only acceptable answer.

#86 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 December 2010 - 11:50 AM

The answer to the OP is quite simple.  Macro-evolution has never been witnessed in a population, or an individual.

Therefore the correct answer for the evolutionist would be:  Yes I have faith that Macro-evolution occurs, because I have never ever observed it happening.

Unless anyone has actually observed Macro-evolution in an individual or a population, then the above is the only acceptable answer.

View Post


Good summary Scott. The bad thing is that most evolutionists will never admit they are basing their belief system on faith...

#87 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 18 December 2010 - 12:57 PM

Would it be going off topic if i were to explain why this isnt faith-based?

#88 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 18 December 2010 - 01:07 PM

And how exactly did that happen? The life form just happens to replicate itself?

View Post


Sorry to miss your post, Mama. No, there is nothing magical about a self-replicating molecule.

In a fluid environment (e.g. the sea) with abundant chemical resources and an energy supply (i.e. sunlight) chemical reactions are bound to occur.
Picture a molecule in the sea that can bond with passing material that is the same as its constituents. It would create a repeating chain. If the chain broke there would be two daughter molecules and self-replication would have occurred. If one of the daughter molecules hadn’t replicated perfectly but was more adapted or stable than the other daughter it would stand more chance of survival and success at self-replication. You can imagine how the long road to the cell and DNA could have begun.

Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario. We are talking of a specific event a long time ago and the above is just an illustration of the circumstances which abiogenesis would have required. Yes, a self-replicating molecule would be improbable – but it only had to emerge once. Like you, I once thought that life required a magical input. However, at base it reduces to chemistry.

#89 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 18 December 2010 - 01:14 PM

The answer to the OP is quite simple.  Macro-evolution has never been witnessed in a population, or an individual.

Therefore the correct answer for the evolutionist would be:  Yes I have faith that Macro-evolution occurs, because I have never ever observed it happening.

Unless anyone has actually observed Macro-evolution in an individual or a population, then the above is the only acceptable answer.

View Post


I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers. Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

#90 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 December 2010 - 02:25 PM

I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers.  Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

View Post

You can go online to different sites that will list the different types of fossils in the Grand Canyon from bottom to top. I don't see a set progression. You can qualify your statements and say "well amphibians are higher than stromatolites" (which are bacteria biofilm buildups). If you are just looking at it that way, I could say "well fish are higher than amphibians in some strata."

But you see, they'll say fish were already here, because they are in lower strata also. And if a raccoon is found lower with the fish (not in the Crand Canyon, but in other areas), then it fell in the lake and got covered. So, you know the model is always the guiding force for interpretation.

But if you look at it from a flood geology perspective. The fish and other marine fauna are throughout the strata.

And now, the latest thing I've found in debating--when talking about living fossils, or fish in the Cambrian, alongside echinoderms and sponges--well it's not the same species---because it evolved.

I say no, it is an extinct species in the same family as modern fish--it's still a fish (a vertebrate with eyes in the one of the "first" fossil bearing strata) with sponges, and you have little more than bacteria in the Sumerian and before. That's not a good sorting job. Sounds kind of like what we got today.

At any rate, the bottom line. The laggerstatten and other fossil bearing strata are captured settings, rather than some progressive documentation of evolution.

There is order in that mammals and reptiles are generally higher, but they are also a small minority in the record. They are also land animals, and would have been higher when the flood started. Marine life was underwater, and did not escape the sediment that covered them. The land animals were seeking to stay on top of the water, and so less of them were covered.

But it also makes sense that marine flora and fauna would dominate the fossil record in most of the strata, if the flood occurred. And that is what we find.

#91 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 December 2010 - 03:05 PM

Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario.  We are talking of a specific event a long time ago and the above is just an illustration of the circumstances which abiogenesis would have required.  Yes, a self-replicating molecule would be improbable – but it only had to emerge once.  Like you, I once thought that life required a magical input.  However, at base it reduces to chemistry.

View Post


Do you know of any self replicating molecules that also encode protein? The only thing I know about is something that produces more RNA--not protein. A self replicating molecule is not life, and if does not have additional help, it will alwys be just a purposeless nano program.

So you had to have more spontaneous synthesis of proteinS, to make whatever you would propose, possibly enzymes (very large macromolecules) and membranes, until the RNA started encoding proteins itself.

SO once wouldn't have been enough. You need many many proteins which have the proper binding sites to make a membrane.

It has been shown here that one 60 amino acid protein would have approximately 10 ^ 78 combinations. And you need it to happen many many times--spontaneously making the proper proteins for even the simplest of life.


It takes much more faith to propose such a thing happened out of unguided chemistry, than for me to believe that God created life whole and spontaneous. And it makes more sense.

#92 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 December 2010 - 03:51 PM

Would it be going off topic if i were to explain why this isnt faith-based?

View Post


Well since you haven't ever seen Macro-evolution happen in an individual or a population then... no you can't explain why it isn't faith based, because that would defy logic since it is faith based.

If you can't show me Macro-evolution happening then yes, you are absolutely having faith in your belief of Macro-evolution. The same goes for every other evolutionist, because they haven't seen it happening either.

Macro-evolution is not testable, nor is it repeatable, or observable... therefore it is not truly scientific. It belongs in the Philosophical realm.

#93 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 December 2010 - 03:59 PM

I think macro-evolution occurs because of the evidence of biogeography and phylogeny and the distribution of fossils through the geological layers.  Creationists say these evidences are based on presuppositions but do not say what these presuppositions are.

View Post


That's fine that you have faith that Macro-evolution occurs. I can take Phylogeny, the lack of even distribution of fossils, and the lack of an actual geologic time column as evidence for Creation as well.

#94 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 December 2010 - 06:27 PM

Would it be going off topic if i were to explain why this isnt faith-based?

View Post


Facts, and absolute truths are not faith based.

#95 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 19 December 2010 - 06:39 AM

Do you know of any self replicating molecules that also encode protein?  The only thing I know about is something that produces more RNA--not protein.  A self replicating molecule is not life, and if does not have additional help, it will alwys be just a purposeless nano program.

So you had to have more spontaneous synthesis of proteinS, to make whatever you would propose, possibly enzymes (very large macromolecules) and membranes, until the RNA started encoding proteins itself.

SO once wouldn't have been enough. You need many many proteins which have the proper binding sites to make a membrane.  

It has been shown here that one 60 amino acid protein would have approximately 10 ^ 78 combinations.  And you need it to happen many many times--spontaneously making the proper proteins for even the simplest of life. 
It takes much more faith to propose such a thing happened out of unguided chemistry, than for me to believe that God created life whole and spontaneous.  And it makes more sense.

View Post


I did want to add a newsclip here to verify my suspisions that self replicating RNA in primordial soup, or perhaps a clay crystal medium, would be able to do nothing but replicate itself, and nothing more.

Look at this quote from...
http://www.sciencene...eplicating-rna/

Scientists create artificial self-replicating RNA!

Joyce's chemicals are technically hacked RNA enzymes, much like the ones we have in our bodies, but they don't behave anything like those in living creatures. But, these synthetic RNA replicators do provide a model for evolution — and shed light on one step in the development of early living systems from on a lifeless globe. "

In addition, once the replicators started going, they would occasionally suffer mutations - some would die out, but others would be more successful at replicating, thus coming to dominate the population.

After 77 generations, all the original replicators were gone - taken over by the new variants, stronger and mightier than before.

Whoa - if this isn't a compelling case for evolution! Right before our eyes!


Good case for selection. No problem. But the creationist arguement is the source or ingredients for selection have to ALREADY BE THERE. RNA is not enough, though some want to define it as life.

The following is the demonstration of our repeated argument. The evos will continue to hope against hope, to define things for oversimplication, and then use bait and switch. Basically borrowing a little piece of life to demonstrate one of Darwin's principles, and then say the whole theory is true.

From the same article, here is the demonstration of what we have been saying....

There is a limitation, though... for the experiment to produce artificial life, not only does it need to reproduce, it needs to develop new functions, which these replicators seem unable to do...


Do ya think? It's like we're saying we are going to make a cake with a bag of flour, and we have no other ingredients. Isn't this more than self evident??

DNA and RNA have an entire energy system (other biochemical systems, and/or organs) with which they work, regulating and energizing the entire living system. The research for phosphorlyzation and dephosphorlyzation of proteins is quite developed, as well as all kinds of other regulation, that enable the DNA to encode the proper proteins and enzymes at the proper time, in the proper amounts.

This is done in order to provide energy for an entire living system and maintain it's growth, protection, and repair.

Furthermore the self-replicating RNA was designed by intelligence. It was not spontaneously synthesized in primordial soup!

#96 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 19 December 2010 - 11:13 AM

Well since you haven't ever seen Macro-evolution happen in an individual or a population then... no you can't explain why it isn't faith based, because that would defy logic since it is faith based.

If you can't show me Macro-evolution happening then yes, you are absolutely having faith in your belief of Macro-evolution.  The same goes for every other evolutionist, because they haven't seen it happening either.

Macro-evolution is not testable, nor is it repeatable, or observable... therefore it is not truly scientific.  It belongs in the Philosophical realm.

View Post


Thats not at all what i asked, though.

#97 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 December 2010 - 11:33 AM

Thats not at all what i asked, though.

View Post


Huh, no you asked " Would it be going off-topic if I were to explain why this isn't faith based."

So without you being more specific it's what I assumed you asked, and no you can't show that Macro-evolution isn't faith based specifically because it's not observable, not repeatable, or testable.

Or you could be a little bit more specific in what you ask... so now if that's not what your asking, then what is it?

#98 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 19 December 2010 - 11:40 AM

Huh, no you asked " Would it be going off-topic if I were to explain why this isn't faith based."

So without you being more specific it's what I assumed you asked, and no you can't show that Macro-evolution isn't faith based specifically because it's not observable, not repeatable, or testable.

Or you could be a little bit more specific in what you ask... so now if that's not what your asking, then what is it?

View Post


The specifics of my question would be, "Is explaining how this isnt faith based, better left for another topic, or can i talk about it in here, without going off topic?"

Its a simple yes or no question. Yes, you can talk about it, because it is on the topic of this thread, or No, you cannot talk about it here because it is off topic, instead, make a new thread.

#99 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 December 2010 - 11:50 AM

The specifics of my question would be, "Is explaining how this isnt faith based, better left for another topic, or can i talk about it in here, without going off topic?"

Its a simple yes or no question. Yes, you can talk about it, because it is on the topic of this thread, or No, you cannot talk about it here because it is off topic, instead, make a new thread.

View Post


Talk about what? What is " It" ?

#100 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 19 December 2010 - 02:32 PM

macro-evolution at an individual level??? you arent seriously suggesting that evolution happens at all at the individual level, let alone macro-evolution, are you? macro-evolution takes millions of years to happen, how in the world would anyone be able to see that? we can, however observe the rare phenomenon of a ring species, or currently living intermediate species, but these are very rare cases. we have to observe the evidence collected to support macro-evolution, and there is enough of it to conclude that it happened.

View Post


Your not seriously suggesting that Macro-evolution happens are you? Well, if you are then you'll need to provide evidence for it.

Ring species are fine examples of cross breeding, and it should also be noted that intermediate species dead or alive have never been found.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users