Jump to content


Photo

Questions For Creationists - Atavisms And Genetic Leftovers

atavism genetics

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
154 replies to this topic

#141 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 01:28 PM

Do you admit that your premise that assumes that design must be perfect is a false one?


Er, I have already said this:

As for perfect design. We (atheists) can only go on what we're told about your beliefs. God is supposed to be perfect so it would be strange to suppose he would design in imperfection. Strange but not impossible of course because your god is also capable of doing anything he puts his mind to.



#142 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 February 2012 - 02:39 PM

Er, I have already said this:

I don't see any good reasons to think that a perfect God would have to design everything perfectly. Especially the Christian God seeing how imperfection is explained by the fall, depending on which interpretation of Genesis you take. In order to make this a valid point, you have to make a good argument as to why a perfect God has to design everything perfectly.

#143 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:45 PM

I don't see any good reasons to think that a perfect God would have to design everything perfectly.


Neither do I
(You don't seem to be able to take yes for an answer - read my last post again)

Especially the Christian God seeing how imperfection is explained by the fall, depending on which interpretation of Genesis you take.


Now it's your turn. Please provide objective evidence for the fall.

.

#144 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:03 PM

Well all this is the standard watchmaker argument which has all the standard responses


Oh I see, now you are going to dodge the issue by riding on the backs of other athiests. So how exactly does the "standard response" disprove my point?

However, a new element was introduced by Gilbo which makes a mess of it - we can't know whether anything is designed or not because we can't know God's (the assumed designer's) mind.


There is no "mess" here at all. As I pointed out, no one needs to know the mind of a designer in order to understand whether or not something is designed. I find it hard to fathom the lengths that atheists are willing to go in order to evade something that is just plain common sense. If you find a letter written in French then you don't need to understand French to realize that it was written by someone with intelligence.

Here we have something that goes far beyond anything that any human being has even come close to figuring out. And what is your response to this? Just pretend it is a "mess"? Or that there is some kind of "standard response" that hopefully deals with is? Talk about being willingly ignorant!
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#145 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:18 PM

Here:



Honestly you do not read my posts do you?

I already said, (drawing from Prof Craig), that in order to recognise an explanation as the best you don't need an explanation of the explanation.

That is to say that in order to recognise that design is the best explanation we do not need an explanation of the design process. Posts 118 and 125 actually explain this, as I said before and I quoted them, so the only logical reason why you continue to assert otherwise is either you didn't read my posts, or you just do not understand them.

#146 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:39 PM

That is to say that in order to recognise that design is the best explanation we do not need an explanation of the design process. Posts 118 and 125 actually explain this, as I said before and I quoted them, so the only logical reason why you continue to assert otherwise is either you didn't read my posts, or you just do not understand them.


Or possibly because Craig saying it's so, don't make it so? This site is pretty anal about logical fallacies, I'll leave you to work out which to apply.

I'll repeat it if you like.

If, as you say, we can not know the mind of the designer, we can not recognise design. This is because the designer is capable of designing perfect and imperfect things and is also capable of making things look designed to us that are not, if he so wishes.

I think you'll find that Craig didn't cover the twist that you inroduced.

#147 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:44 PM

Neither do I
(You don't seem to be able to take yes for an answer - read my last post again)



Now it's your turn. Please provide objective evidence for the fall.

.

If you agree that the premise is false then why are you using that argument? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Sure, the evidence for the fall is that things are indeed not perfect, and that we can observe that sin does harm others. By the way, I am not going to allow you to define what "objective" evidence is, you are in absolutely no position to do so.

#148 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 February 2012 - 04:50 PM

Or possibly because Craig saying it's so, don't make it so? This site is pretty anal about logical fallacies, I'll leave you to work out which to apply.

I'll repeat it if you like.

If, as you say, we can not know the mind of the designer, we can not recognise design. This is because the designer is capable of designing perfect and imperfect things and is also capable of making things look designed to us that are not, if he so wishes.

I think you'll find that Craig didn't cover the twist that you inroduced.

Or possibly because Craig saying it's so, don't make it so? This site is pretty anal about logical fallacies, I'll leave you to work out which to apply.

I'll repeat it if you like.

If, as you say, we can not know the mind of the designer, we can not recognise design. This is because the designer is capable of designing perfect and imperfect things and is also capable of making things look designed to us that are not, if he so wishes.

I think you'll find that Craig didn't cover the twist that you inroduced.


You do not need an explanation of the explanation... You continue to assert that you do, post 118 and 125 give evidence to the contrary... When will you

i) stop asserting and provide evidence
ii) reply to the points in post 118 and 125 rather than skipping around them with your assertions, (as I said I can claim I have $1,000,000,000 does that mean I have this money?)

and I covered examples in Biochemistry that CANNOT have come about via an evolutionary process, that must have existed in their entirety with each and every specific part and piece, hence what other option is there?

#149 JayShel

JayShel

    Atheist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Florida

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:24 PM

The thing is, they are still sorted according to the evolutionary relationships that we infer from other means. Let’s say you took all the simiiformes in the world and use genetics and morphology to construct a phylogenetic tree, and you would end up with 2 main branches – the catarrhini (apes and old world monkeys), and platyrrhini (new world monkeys). The important point to note is that you can do this without any reference to where these animals are actually found – just based on morphology and genetics we can infer that all the catarrhines are closer to each other than to any platyrrhines, and vice versa. And then we can go out into the world and look at where these animals are, and find that the catarrhines are all native to Africa (or parts of Europe / Asia which they could migrate to, seeing as all these land masses are joined or at least were joined before the Suez Canal was built), while all the platyrrhines are native to the Americas instead. I don’t think that something like this would have happened by chance. I’m not sure how many “kinds” of new world monkeys and old world monkeys creationists believe must have spread out from the Ark, however there must have been many. If we take genus as a rough indication of “kind” (as an indication, this places lions and tigers in the same kind, but not in the same kind as domestic cats), then we would have around 25 “kinds” of new world monkeys and 30 “kinds” of old world monkeys and apes, and that is a conservative estimate. I find it awfully hard to believe that somehow, when spread out from the ark, all 25 of the platyrrhines just happened to make it to the Americas and not a single one settled elsewhere! It is similarly hard to believe that, while spreading from the ark, all 30 kinds of catarrhines happily settled in Africa / Eurasia, but not one made it to the Americas, despite all the platyrrhines not having any apparent difficulty in getting there! It seems too obvious to have happened by chance, and if God guided them by his divine providence I really think he’s just messing with us!


Or He made a choice to do something a specific way and you are misinterpreting what happened, therefore it wouldn't be God messing with you, rather your misinterpretation that is causing your confusion.

The fact that we have no fossils catarrhines in the Americas etc etc means that we have no record of them living in America, it does not rule it out completely. As with chimpanzee fossils, we may discover some, so you cannot assert that not a single one settled here. There are many living fossils that prove based on old earth assumptions, that organisms can live for millions of years and yet we have a huge gap (millions of years) in the fossil record of their existence that we currently posses. I had suggested this before but you didn't get the point, or ignored it. This is where jumping to conclusions is getting you in trouble. That is a fallacious argument, an argument from silence of the fossil record.

Agreed. I just think it’s hard to believe that if marsupials did live all over the world before the flood, the same places where they fossilized in the flood just happened to be the same places they live afterwards. If the fossils were made after the flood that would make much more sense, as then you at least have an explanation for why their fossils are in those places – because that’s where they live and die. What you don’t have is an explanation for why all these marsupials are there in the first place and why no placental mammals made it here. I would think if animals were spreading out from the ark, there might be a general trend of species to migrate depending on what environments they were best suited to, but it would be by no means absolute.


Again, I refer to my argument above, this is an argument from silence. I am no expert, but the fossils forming under catastrophic conditions after the flood would make sense right? You have more answers, but no one can tell if they are right. You build all of your conclusions on the philosophical presupposition that this natural evidence can explain everything that happened, and that nothing supernatural influenced our natural evidence, yet this philosophical presupposition is outside the realm of science.

I agree that things are always open to interpretation, but to me evolution is the best interpretation because it explains so much, the geographical distribution of species we were just discussing and the hierarchy of derived traits from earlier, and much more beyond. Now I admit I know far from everything relating to this issue, but I do think I know enough about the world to decide which one is more likely out of creation and evolution. It’s not an absolute decision, I just see evolution as far, far more likely.


You base your assumptions on lack of evidence in the fossil record, which isn't scientific, it is based on your faith in a naturalistic philosophy. Creationism explains just as much, but we take into account the historical testimony of Jesus Christ, since it is historically reliable and it's claims have been verified through prophecy, archaeology, internal testimony, external testimony, etc. You can say that your philosophy explains everything better, but the evidence is being interpreted through your philosophy. You are throwing away evidence and saying "see, everything fits".

#150 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:38 PM

God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day

The word "day" is specifically related to the creation of light in context. The darkness was therefore before the first day.

Well we know that God is eternal therefore always had activity, therefore there was without a doubt matter and work being performed for the ultra-billions of years before God created mankind. Which sorta ruins your "weak" pun :) about the week, because activity was not restricted to those 6 days, just the creation process of visible light and life on earth is restricted to the 6 days, we cannot assume a six-day only rule when the very context itself contradicts this.


KJV Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I guess in your version God is to stupid to know how to count?

#151 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:38 AM


God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day

The word "day" is specifically related to the creation of light in context. The darkness was therefore before the first day.


We also call the light part of a day "day" and the dark part "night" as well as using the word to refer to the entire 24 hours including light and darkness. The days of creation are the latter definition of day and we all know that with the Hebrew day darkness always precedes the light part.

Which sorta ruins your "weak" pun


Are you trying to say that my pun was weak? :P

#152 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:59 AM

We also call the light part of a day "day" and the dark part "night" as well as using the word to refer to the entire 24 hours including light and darkness. The days of creation are the latter definition of day and we all know that with the Hebrew day darkness always precedes the light part.

Clever answer, nevertheless I maintain my position that context is clear that the light was the determining factor in defining that first day. As with a lot of bible interpretation , it is often subjective, what the context says to me will be different to what the context appears like to you, and this is often subconsciously governed by the first lesson we receive, or by a well thought out conclusion once made that is difficult now to change because of a deep "certainty" we now have about out position.

I still think the context of Genesis 1 is pretty obvious, the creation of the earth occurred before the 6 days, as did the darkness occur before the creation of the first day. We will just have to agree to disagree here.



Are you trying to say that my pun was weak? :P


Let's just say I was deliberately ambiguous, lol.

#153 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:06 AM

KJV Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I guess in your version God is to stupid to know how to count?


I don't really understand your point here. Are you making the same point as UppsalaDragby, that the day starts with the evening and therefore the darkness before the light was actually part of the first day?
I believe the universe was created before the six days, and the visibility of light, the sun, the moon, the stars and the creation of the land, the oceans, and the sky was produced during the 6 days from the perspective of where the spirit of god was ie from the dark surface.

#154 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:35 AM



That is to say that in order to recognise that design is the best explanation we do not need an explanation of the design process. Posts 118 and 125 actually explain this, as I said before and I quoted them, so the only logical reason why you continue to assert otherwise is either you didn't read my posts, or you just do not understand them.



Or possibly because Craig saying it's so, don't make it so? This site is pretty anal about logical fallacies, I'll leave you to work out which to apply.


The above is typical of why Tangle is gone now. He would make wild accusations, then refuse to back up his assertions with facts, logic or cogent reasoning.

First – Of course William Lane Craig’s words alone didn’t support them-selves, that would be self-stultifying, unprofessional and not academic. And absolutely NO ONE said they did, nor did anyone infer such silliness! Dr. Craig, as a world renown and greatly respected logician reasoned through to his conclusions in a logical manner using evidences to support his premises! Unlike Tangle, who simply made assertions, and never attempted to support them.

Second – I can understand why Tangle was so upset that he was held to the standard of not being allowed to use fallacious logic. He was frustrated because his less than honest tactics were being exposed for all to see.



I'll repeat it if you like.

If, as you say, we can not know the mind of the designer, we can not recognise design. This is because the designer is capable of designing perfect and imperfect things and is also capable of making things look designed to us that are not, if he so wishes.

I think you'll find that Craig didn't cover the twist that you inroduced.



A few major problems with Tangles argumentative attempts above:

First – We cannot fathom the mind of the designer, because we have shown absolutely NO ability to understand, let alone achieve, what the Creator has created. We can set on the side-lines and be in awe and wonder of said design, or we can complain that we could do a better job (with absolutely NO evidence that we could back up our collective mouths with the required actions).

Second – The designer made everything perfect (or “good”), it was MAN (Adam and Eve) who tainted it with imperfection.

Third – If one “makes” something, then it (by definition) was “designed”! One cannot “make something NOT LOOK designed. The statement “capable of making things look designed to us that are not” is illogical, ill-conceived and ludicrous! It is so wrong, on so many levels, it cannot HELP but expose the silliness of the speaker of said statement.

Lastly – Obviously Tangle has absolutely no clue as to what William Lane Craig has covered. I highly doubt, in fact, that Tangle has ever read a book, paper or Debate transcript that William Lane Craig wrote, or was involved in.

#155 JayShel

JayShel

    Atheist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Florida

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:50 PM

You are throwing away evidence and saying "see, everything fits".


You may be wondering, what is he talking about throwing away evidence. Exhibit A:

However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
[...]
It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.
[...]
What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years? Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely. Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? No. Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.3 He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’.
[...]
What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? No. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.4 Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.
http://creation.com/...ric-dating#b2r1


Circular reasoning. Your bias proves the old earth ages, and the old earth ages prove your bias.

But wait, in order for the radiometric dating to be completely erroneous, we would need proof that the decay rate could be SIGNIFICANTLY altered, right? Exhibit B:

Thus, at 600 MK, the effective t½ of 176Lu is only about 8 days!<a href="http://creation.com/...aboratory#r11">11 This is short enough that if, as discussed earlier, all of the atoms in the universe had been created in a very hot state—which just means very high kinetic energies—(and maintained that way for several hours on the First Day), all the excess 176Hf in existence would have been generated within that short period.
[...]
The modern uniformitarian geologist misreads this deployment of the radiogenic isotopes as isochrons indicative of up to billions of years to time. This span of time never happened.
[...]
This exciting demonstration that isotopic ‘clocks’ can be accelerated at least a billion-fold is good news to creationist scholars. It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open.
http://creation.com/...d-in-laboratory


So what is radiometric dating good for?

Just because the calculated results are not the true ages does not mean that the method is completely useless. The dates calculated are based on the isotopic composition of the rock. And the composition is a characteristic of the molten lava from which the rock solidified. Therefore, rocks in the same area which give similar ‘dates’ are likely to have formed from the same lava at about the same time during the Flood. So, although the assumptions behind the calculation are wrong and the dates are incorrect, there may be a pattern in the results that can help geologists understand the relationships between igneous rocks in a region.http://creation.com/...ric-dating#b2r1


Many modern geologists acknowledge that geologic depositions tend to occur as a result of tsunamis, volcanoes, mudslides, rock slides, earthquakes, tectonics, basically large scale earth-moving events. It is quite easy to see that although we have not yet unlocked the full picture of a global flood, we have both historical evidence from cultures around the world (many flood "myths" confirming Biblical details of the flood and creation over and over again as currently being sought out by Jeremy Wiles the Ark Hunter
(starting at 11:35, 13:30, and 23:00 are about the flood) (starting at 16:10, 21:15 is some more interesting Biblical details preserved in "non-Judeo-Christian cultures) and from scientific data.

Cheers.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: atavism, genetics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users