Jump to content


Photo

Critique My Argument Against Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#41 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 February 2018 - 02:35 PM

 

You may think it an outrageous claim but its what the data tells us. ... One side is overwhelming supported by the science and its not yours I'm afraid.


You could make that argument seventy year ago or so. Life certainly looked designed, but that was a subjective argument. Scientists couldn't see far enough into the cell and body to see the many levels of hierarchical function. And the astounding number of permutations of proteins of which a handful are viable for a particular function remained hidden. The code that maps DNA to proteins and the molecular machinery that uses it were all hidden. Lacking this data, scientists could be excused for still having faith in Darwin's explanation.

But now that we have the data we no longer have an excuse to believe in evolution.

 

 

I Use Jellyfish because they are one of the "500 MYO Living Fossils" That have "evolved" ZERO, just to demonstrate the silliness of holding onto a faith that while SOME "Jellyfish like Creature" Was Not evolving at all.. some of his Brothers were becoming Man... They get offended, not because they have a problem with evolving from a jellyfish, a maggot, or a cockroach,, they are offended because they just don't like me pointing out the insanity of their beliefs to them and exposing the dirty laundry for others to see as it might force them to actually have to think...  Carry on soldier! I like your style!

 

Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."

(Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

 

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

 

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination."

(Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

 

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."

(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

 

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."

(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

 

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century."

(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

 

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view."

(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

 

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."

(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

 

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."

(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

 

"Evolution is faith, a religion."

(Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

 

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)

 

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it."

(H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31)

 

"A time honored scientific tenet of faith."

(Professor David Allbrook)

 

"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."

(Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,"pg. 23)

 

"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species."

(Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)

 

"Chance renders evolution impossible."

(Dr. James Coppedge)


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#42 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 February 2018 - 03:41 PM

 

Wibble: They are not confirmed human footprints, I'm afraid CMI don't have that kind of authority. At best, they are possibly hominin. Even I can tell they don't look human, they're far too triangular - more like an ape.

It wasn't a CMI confirmation, I guess you missed the news about it, it was evolutionary scientists that investigated it.[/font]

 

 
Which of the researchers confirmed them as human footprints Mike ?
 
 

As for the red-highlighted part of your post, it's a very obvious contradiction. You are claiming that apes became more towards the unique bipedal foot of humans, only humans have the unique human foot, so then how can you suggest the tracks look possibly, "hominin" when technically speaking there have only ever been one bipedal hominen known to have human feet, but in the same breath say they don't look, "human"?

 
It’s not a contradiction at all, you are assuming the conclusion you want it to be. If you are honest with yourself those prints do not look human. We have never found bone fossils in any of the layers of the age of any creationist alleged human tracks, so why ignore the available data and conclude they are human ?
 

Your complaint "triangular" makes it look more like an ape, is silly, apes don't have one large toe at the front and four toes next to it, they have a hand-like foot. Need I show you a picture of an ape's foot? You also need to remember track-ways are very different from finding actual remains of a foot, or a full foot because track-ways have all kinds of differing characteristics, basically you can get many track-ways made by humans which look pretty disparate but they all have the same basic, unique human pattern.

 
Yes I’m aware that extant apes have a divergent large toe so I’ll actually agree with you that it isn’t fully ape like. But it isn’t fully human like either. At the end of the day, without skeletal evidence we can’t make any firm conclusion as to what laid those prints. We can await further details once the prints are released for high resolution laser scanning.
 

Wibble: And A. afarensis is the only hominin fossil found anywhere near Laetoli, so seems the most likely candidate for those tracks[/font][/color]


No, critical thinking tells us this is ABYSMALLY tenuous in it's circumstantial capacity. Think about it, would you want to be convicted of murder because you were the only one they could confirm were in the park at that time? What an appallingly weak argument-from-ignorance, that because you say the only evidence of animals in stone or buried at that time are found to be pithecine Afarensis or whatever they call the apes, that this means human track ways likely belonged to them.

 


It wouldn’t be right to be convicted of murder under the scenario you describe because we know for a fact that other people exist and that other people walk through parks. So the conviction could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt based solely on that evidence. The Laetoli tracks are not claimed to be A. afarensis proven beyond reasonable doubt either, they are simply given as the most likely maker based on the available evidence (no human or hominin bones other than afarensis found and is consistent with afarensis bone morphology). If a different hominin species was found then clearly this would be reassessed. Nothing wrong with that stance, its the most parsimonious one.
 

I am afraid this only tells me that people educated in the science of these things, that study them and find them and conclude these things, are not prone towards good critical thinking just because they have a phd. They only conclude human tracks belong to apes based on circular reasoning, they only conclude it because, "evolution says humans didn't exist at this time but that apes were evolving into them".


You could dispense with your sweeping generalization that “people educated in the science of these things” are bizarrely unable to think critically if you could produce some human skeletons, which would be incontrovertible evidence but oddly they are all missing yet we have tracks that you assert are definitely human. Your geographical province excuse for absent fossils doesn’t work now does it ?


 

Wibble, is what I am asking too much to ask? That you don't make out human-like tracks definitely belonged to extinct Afarensis apes?


I didn’t say definitely did I ? Most likely candidate is what I said.
 

Lucy also has a foramen magnum which is close to that of a chimps, assuming you understand how easily this points to duadrupedal anatomy, for if you look at the spine of a dog will it enter the skull at the angle a humans does? Or does it make more sense the spine will enter from the rear of the head in things more quadrupedal than biped?


The foramen magnum of Lucy’s species (A. afarensis) has intermediate features between chimps and humans.
Attached File  862a9169cd5be4f8f5733e7ed3dac6d5771c2a8d.jpg   85.5KB   0 downloads


This paper has technical details, not only on its position (which it states is closer to the human condition) but other features, some more chimp like, some more human like.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2981961/

 



#43 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 February 2018 - 04:06 PM

I Use Jellyfish because they are one of the "500 MYO Living Fossils" That have "evolved" ZERO, just to demonstrate the silliness of holding onto a faith that while SOME "Jellyfish like Creature" Was Not evolving at all.. some of his Brothers were becoming Man...


Can't you see that just stating these things just because you personally don't like the idea does not make a coherent argument ? I'll ask you again, what must prevent the medusa jellyfish phenotype from still existing 500 million years later and what precludes a completely different phylum and body plan (Chordata)- representatives of which were contemporary with your Cambrian jellyfish - from evolving and diversifying to a much greater extent ?

 

They get offended, not because they have a problem with evolving from a jellyfish, a maggot, or a cockroach,, they are offended because they just don't like me pointing out the insanity of their beliefs to them and exposing the dirty laundry for others to see as it might force them to actually have to think...


No its clearly your side that gets offended because you can't bear the idea of humans having evolved from some 'lower' organism. And you hate a literal reading of Genesis being challenged because for you if that isn't true then your whole religion comes crashing down which would be psychologically crushing for you.



#44 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 05 February 2018 - 05:25 PM

And you hate a literal reading of Genesis being challenged because for you if that isn't true then your whole religion comes crashing down which would be psychologically crushing for you.


Can't speak for others, but as for me, that's all wrong. I used to believe in evolution because I figured scientists believed it so it must be true. The Lord spent so very few pages of scripture on the subject that it was easy for me to wrap them in metaphor and focus on the more important spiritual parts. I only woke up to the truth a few years ago.

I don't like that there's no actual mechanism for Adam's creation. I used to mock creationists by asking if the air audibly popped when Adam appeared or if his body absorbed the air his body displaced. Was he created with knowledge? And on and on. But now the evidence is crystal clear that no natural process can explain the mutual dependencies within the deeply hierarchal components in our bodies. And it definitely can't explain how any protein came to be.

I don't know if Adam popped or not, but once you start to realize the shocking intricacies and excellence of the physical design, those questions become somewhat trivial.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#45 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 February 2018 - 05:41 PM

I Use Jellyfish because they are one of the "500 MYO Living Fossils" That have "evolved" ZERO, just to demonstrate the silliness of holding onto a faith that while SOME "Jellyfish like Creature" Was Not evolving at all.. some of his Brothers were becoming Man...

Can't you see that just stating these things just because you personally don't like the idea does not make a coherent argument ? I'll ask you again, what must prevent the medusa jellyfish phenotype from still existing 500 million years later and what precludes a completely different phylum and body plan (Chordata)- representatives of which were contemporary with your Cambrian jellyfish - from evolving and diversifying to a much greater extent ?

They get offended, not because they have a problem with evolving from a jellyfish, a maggot, or a cockroach,, they are offended because they just don't like me pointing out the insanity of their beliefs to them and exposing the dirty laundry for others to see as it might force them to actually have to think...

No its clearly your side that gets offended because you can't bear the idea of humans having evolved from some 'lower' organism. And you hate a literal reading of Genesis being challenged because for you if that isn't true then your whole religion comes crashing down which would be psychologically crushing for you.

"I'll ask you again, what must prevent the medusa jellyfish phenotype from still existing 500 million years later and what precludes a completely different phylum and body plan (Chordata)- representatives of which were contemporary with your Cambrian jellyfish - from evolving and diversifying to a much greater extent ?"


AND I WILL ANSWER YOU AGAIN ONCE AND FOR ALL, FOR THE LAST TIME..ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! WHAT WOULD "PREVENT"
ANYTHING AT ALL FROM HAPPENING IN YOUR SCIENCE FICTION TALE OF LONG AGO AND FAR AWAY?.. YOU CAN CLAIM WHATEVER YOU LIKE, YOU CAN EVEN CLAIM THAT RED BLOOD CELLS CAN LAST FOREVER IF YOU LIKE.. AFTER ALL, WITHOUT A TIME MACHINE, WHO CAN PROVE YOU WRONG??? THE END


"And you hate a literal reading of Genesis being challenged because.."

AND IF YOU THINK THAT BY MAKING UP PREPOSTEROUS INCREDIBLE FAIRYTALES ABOUT A MYTHICAL "BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO" AND THEN SAYING "PROVE IT DIDNT HAPPEN" WHILE CLOSING YOUR EYES, STICKING OUT YOUR TONGUE AND PLUGGING YOUR EARS IS "GENESIS BEING CHALLENGED" .. ALL I CAN SAY IS.. MAY GOD BLESS YOUR LITTLE HEART....

#46 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 06 February 2018 - 01:58 AM

 

And you hate a literal reading of Genesis being challenged because for you if that isn't true then your whole religion comes crashing down which would be psychologically crushing for you.


Can't speak for others, but as for me, that's all wrong. I used to believe in evolution because I figured scientists believed it so it must be true. The Lord spent so very few pages of scripture on the subject that it was easy for me to wrap them in metaphor and focus on the more important spiritual parts. I only woke up to the truth a few years ago.

I don't like that there's no actual mechanism for Adam's creation. I used to mock creationists by asking if the air audibly popped when Adam appeared or if his body absorbed the air his body displaced. Was he created with knowledge? And on and on. But now the evidence is crystal clear that no natural process can explain the mutual dependencies within the deeply hierarchal components in our bodies. And it definitely can't explain how any protein came to be.

I don't know if Adam popped or not, but once you start to realize the shocking intricacies and excellence of the physical design, those questions become somewhat trivial.

 


Its more obvious with BK because of the statements he makes and the way he behaves but what I said is probably true with all YEC (of which you hold partial adherence to). Its all or nothing, and huge swathes of evidence must be ignored or handwaved away in order to maintain faith.

As for biochemical complexity, that is just argument from ignorance and incredulity. You can't just discard the vast evidence from other areas, such as biogeography, the fossil record etc., and disregard the array of dating methods just so that a 6000yr old earth can be believed. If the complexities of the cell seems for you too much to overcome naturally then what is the problem with just accepting God guided the evolutionary process ? You seem to accept an old Universe, why not accept an old Earth and ancient life as well ?



#47 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 06 February 2018 - 09:21 AM

But evolutionists do believe that man evolved from some simple organism, right?

yes, that is the general idea.
from viruses to prokaryotes to eukaryotes to multicellular life.
unfortunately science has been unable to demonstrate the above assumption.
even more puzzling is the fact that viruses show no signs of common ancestry.

#48 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 06 February 2018 - 09:30 AM

If the complexities of the cell seems for you too much to overcome naturally . . .

it isn't just ken, the entire scientific community is CLUELESS as to how life got here.
oh sure, it has ideas such as the RNA world, but the solution has so far eluded mans attempt.
it's the incredible complexity of the problem, not the lack of resources that is preventing a solution.

#49 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 06 February 2018 - 11:07 AM

OK! Now we're getting down to the proverbial brass tacks.
 

As for biochemical complexity, that is just argument from ignorance and incredulity.


No. Exactly the opposite. It's an argument from the evidence--evidence that wasn't available in the 19th century or most of the 20th century.

There's no way to escape the fact that any "natural process" whether abiogenesis, macro-evolution or whatever "What If" proposes (which I still don't understand), it has a basis in random chance. And that means it MUST beat those astoundingly adverse probabilities I keep taking about, per protein. And that can't be done in a many trillion trillion years.

It you want natural selection to act as a filter and improve the odds, you must figure out how it can distinguish a correct-but-incomplete or complete-but-not-totally-correct protein from any other lump of garbage.

Functional coherence and irreducible complexity are fancy words that say many of an organism's systems just won't work with a piece missing. And there's no path from a simpler system to the present system. It has to work all along the way while evolving.
 

You can't just discard the vast evidence from other areas, such as biogeography, the fossil record etc., and disregard the array of dating methods just so that a 6000yr old earth can be believed.


I'm not sure the earth is young, so that's clearly not MY motive for discarding the circumstantial evidence you cite. Evolutionists still think four billion years is long enough to evolve life (ignoring evidence such as in proteins), so they REQUIRE an old earth. But since I accept the evidence of design, I know earth could be either young or old so I just go by the physical evidence. And the evidence is thoroughly confused.

I'm surprised people still accept the fossil record as evidence for evolution. When archaeologists find similar animal fossils in the dirt, they declare the less complex one evolved into the more complex one. They exist, therefore they MUST have evolved. It CAN'T be explained any other way because they refuse to even consider the other possibility.

But a much more logical explanation would be that two models were designed and built instead of just one. There's just as much evidence to support creation as evolution (or more, if we include lack of transitions).

I reject the geological column because of the overwhelming physical and historic evidence of a worldwide flood, in addition to the record in Genesis. Why do archaeologists reject the evidence of the flood? They're clearly biased in favor of the answer they want.

All dating methods have a lot of caveats and limitations. No method for older than a few thousand years can be calibrated because we have no subject material whose age can be independently certified. Carbon dating makes one BIG assumption that is almost certainly wrong, and that is that there has been a steady state of C14 in the atmosphere for longer than the measurement period. We don't know the details of how the flood happened, but the atmosphere almost certainly changed. The air pressure was higher. Oxygen was released along with water from the ringwoodite below us. We can't know what other changes there were. So when carbon dating returns an age older than 5000 years, a crucial factor that affects the results has been ignored.
 

If the complexities of the cell seems for you too much to overcome naturally then what is the problem with just accepting God guided the evolutionary process ?


If the evidence supported evolution I would have no problem at all doing that. In fact, I did just that for most of my life. It's only when I actually started looking into the details of how our bodies work that I woke up and rejected evolution.

Also, why would I want the evidence to be shaded to make atheists more comfortable with their rejection of God?
 

You seem to accept an old Universe, why not accept an old Earth and ancient life as well ?


You seem to be adding a religious motive to override the evidence.

#50 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 February 2018 - 08:23 AM

Wibble, we may both have been misled by artwork it seems. I have been looking into the full, "remains" of the australopiths and you won't believe this but apparently these two piths pictured are the most, "complete" fragments they have, one skull was taken from 200 small fragments.

 

So they are predicating the migration of the foramen magnum, on very limited, fragmentary remains. Lucy herself, the remains, didn't have any piece from the magnum, it seems the most complete piece is only part of it, and the location is somewhat guesswork based on factors they use to determine placement which are far from foolproof;

 

Attached File  pithecine.jpg   63.69KB   0 downloads

 

This article explains more about the claims of the migration;

 

https://answersingen...ng-abomination/

 

To my mind, unless there is some new information, the matter of the position of the magnum isn't something I will argue again. So it seems to me their whole argument for pithecenes and in particular Afarensis, being intermediates, is based on reconstruction of incredibly sparse remains. So sparse to be frank it boggles the mind that they can argue a human evolution from bone remains that might in their totality, fit in a bin bag.

 

Now if they have found some new skulls since, I want to know what portions of the skull are genuine and which parts are imagination. Assuming that picture above is the most, "complete" they have, I think a fair concession for now is that I can't argue a more quadruped stance from the magnum and you can't argue a more bipedal one. That would seem fair to my mind, unless we are presented with more information, and in particular more proper data from finds. 

 

My conclusion is that you keep referring to the term, "more likely" but proper assessment of which is more probable, if we go from the facts, is that human prints come from humans, 1 out of 1 times, but we don't have even one example of any remains of extinct hominids which have human feet. So it is circular reasoning to grant that the tracks with five close-fitting toes, as only humans have in our world, came from evolving hominids, without providing evidence the hominids were evolving into humans. 

 

As you can see from the article, the argument that the pithecine hominids were evo-hominids and not just a different type of extinct ape, is hardly convincing, so it seems to me, human tracks inferred to be from hominids of an evolutionary history, is a conclusion based on circular reasoning alone. It is far more likely human tracks with five close toes, come from humans if we take the facts. To then say "but humans aren't found" in 3 or 5 million year old rocks, is to argue-from-silence, which I have shown many times, is a poor way to reason and fallacious, since it has been proven wrong so very many times. Those very tracks might well be the very evidence of humanity in rock 5 million years old.

 

By analogy imagine if I said, "but we have no evidence cars have ever drove on this portion of land, in history so they can't be tyre tracks from cars." Yet the tracks fit with being car tyres. That means the very tracks may well disprove the conclusion that cars have not drove on that portion of land ever before.



#51 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:02 AM

The science being presented in those cases is still accurate apart from maybe simplifying things a little to suit the level of the students,
 
OH SURE... HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN "SIMPLIFYING THINGS A LITTLE"    AND BILL AND LORETA MET ON THE TARMAC TO "TALK ABOUT THE GRANDKIDS" RIGHT?

As usual, I will accept a complete lack of argument and a sarcastic dismissal as a concession.
 

NO.. THE POINT IS TO BRAINWASH AND INDOCTRINATE THE KIDS FROM THE START TO BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT..

Pretty much exactly the opposite. The quotes Zivkovic referenced came from someone teaching high school sophomores. He has those students for probably at most a year at a time. How long before that will those kids have been told that Earth is 6,000 years old if they were raised in a church/denomination that believes that? What kind of critical thinking skills would they have at the time that starts?

When you're fighting against potentially more than a decade of indoctrination, a slightly flawed understanding of the concepts might be the best you can hope for.

‘If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?’ Bora Zivkovic,


Here's the quote from Natalie Wright he's referencing, by the way:

I second comment #3. Bless Mr. Campbell. He was my high school biology teacher, and this article only begins to illustrate all the ways in which he is an amazing teacher. He constantly challenges his students to think for themselves, to analyze, and to test hypotheses rather than simply accept things at face value. He was the first teacher who ever taught me how, not what, to think, and Mr. Campbell is the reason I am now a biologist, studying evolutionary biology. Thank you, Mr. Campbell, and all biology teachers like you, who, in teaching evolution well, nurture the natural curiosity in young minds.

Does this sound like indoctrination to you? I know it does to you specifically, but try to imagine what a person who knows how a Caps Lock works would think.

#52 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:35 AM

When you're fighting against potentially more than a decade of indoctrination, a slightly flawed understanding of the concepts might be the best you can hope for.


You could be talking about evolution indoctrination just as easily. That's why I love the protein argument I started this thread with. It's usually only discussed in summary, I think because of the uncomfortably big numbers. So rather than indoctrinate, let's talk about how proteins came to be added during macro-evolution against mind-bending probabilities.
 

Does this sound like indoctrination to you?


Just because Natalie claims Mr. Campbell taught her to think doesn't mean either of them stepped back far enough to see the big picture.

#53 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:49 AM

There's no way to escape the fact that any "natural process" whether abiogenesis, macro-evolution or whatever "What If" proposes (which I still don't understand), . . .

what is there to not understand?
to me, it's as plain as the nose on my face.
evolution isn't darwinian, these people can preach it until the cows come home.
the above is probably why abiogenesis has eluded a solution, science is trying to find a "gradual" solution, and there isn't any.
this can only mean that evolution is catalytic.

as far as epigenetics and transposons, both of these in my opinion makes a natural solution to abiogenesis impossible, especially when you throw in a "restart" scenario.
epigenetics most certainly co-evolved with the DNA strand, and i have no idea how transposons acquired tags or how we went from prokaryotes with a preponderance of HGT to eukaryotes with a preponderance of transposons.
even more striking is that HGT and transposons can mimic one another.

#54 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 February 2018 - 12:01 PM

 

 

What If: as far as epigenetics and transposons, both of these in my opinion makes a natural solution to abiogenesis impossible, especially when you throw in a "restart" scenario.
epigenetics most certainly co-evolved with the DNA strand, and i have no idea how transposons acquired tags or how we went from prokaryotes with a preponderance of HGT to eukaryotes with a preponderance of transposons.
even more striking is that HGT and transposons can mimic one another. 

 

The problem is mate, nobody knows what this means. If we don't study genetics all that much how are we supposed to know? Work on your communication my lad. You can start by speaking english. Comprende? ;)

 

Now in all seriousness, I am not saying this to insult you, but you don't want to turn out like the curious case of Brad McFall. Go to evcforum.net and type his name into the search engine and look at his posts.

 

:o 

 

In fact here is an example for you;

 

 

 

Brad: It is begining to appear to me even more subjectively that the idea here may be of value. It would mean that Crick’s idea of a “frozen” accident is wrong, and that Kaufmann’s simple network beyond the algorithm notion of the genetic code is also off. The circularity(supposed) in the notion of Density (of Kant) may be possiblly cognized in the different codon triples for the same amino acid.

Historically, the idea would make sense of Orested’s JUDGeMENT that gavalnic forces are between electric and magnetic (thought by him before he observed deviation of the mag needle under a moving current) and this would be DNA.

RNA using a different base would imply that a slightly different relation to volumes (of attraction and repulsion) is possible to be figured in the proteins rather than in the any construction from the DNA itself and it may be that this is the macrothermodynamic use of substance stability.\

I am beginning to be able to think of translation phoronomically. RNA would enable “re-programming” of case one and two phoronomic situations under a given angle of case 3 but this would not be like digital algorithms in computers nor simple networks as understood by Kaufmann with switches. 

 and another...by which time I suspect you are starting to understand. LOL;

 

 

 

Brad: I do not wish to speak as yet of the ground of this satisfaction, which is bound up with a representation from which we should least of all expect it, viz. a representation which makes us remark it inadequacy and consequently it subjective want of purposiveness for the judgment in the estimation of magnitude. I only remark the if the aesthetical judgment is pure (i.e. mingled with no teleological judgment or judgment of reason) and is to be given as completely suitable example of the critique of aesthetical judgment, we must not exhibit the sublime where human purpose determines the form as well as the size, nor yet in things of nature the concepts of which bring with them a definite purpose (e.g. animals with a known natural destination), but in rude nature (and in this only in so far as it does not bring with it any charm or emotion produced by actual danger) merely as containing magnitude

 

I think in the end about 0.01% of people would read his posts. perhaps he was an alien sent from the planet Vulcan,..... who knows.  :wacko: 



#55 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 12:45 PM

Wibble, we may both have been misled by artwork it seems. I have been looking into the full, "remains" of the australopiths and you won't believe this but apparently these two piths pictured are the most, "complete" fragments they have, one skull was taken from 200 small fragments.

 

So they are predicating the migration of the foramen magnum, on very limited, fragmentary remains. Lucy herself, the remains, didn't have any piece from the magnum, it seems the most complete piece is only part of it, and the location is somewhat guesswork based on factors they use to determine placement which are far from foolproof;

 

attachicon.gifpithecine.jpg

 

This article explains more about the claims of the migration;

 

https://answersingen...ng-abomination/

 

To my mind, unless there is some new information, the matter of the position of the magnum isn't something I will argue again. So it seems to me their whole argument for pithecenes and in particular Afarensis, being intermediates, is based on reconstruction of incredibly sparse remains. So sparse to be frank it boggles the mind that they can argue a human evolution from bone remains that might in their totality, fit in a bin bag.

 

Now if they have found some new skulls since, I want to know what portions of the skull are genuine and which parts are imagination. Assuming that picture above is the most, "complete" they have, I think a fair concession for now is that I can't argue a more quadruped stance from the magnum and you can't argue a more bipedal one. That would seem fair to my mind, unless we are presented with more information, and in particular more proper data from finds. 

 

My conclusion is that you keep referring to the term, "more likely" but proper assessment of which is more probable, if we go from the facts, is that human prints come from humans, 1 out of 1 times, but we don't have even one example of any remains of extinct hominids which have human feet. So it is circular reasoning to grant that the tracks with five close-fitting toes, as only humans have in our world, came from evolving hominids, without providing evidence the hominids were evolving into humans. 

 

As you can see from the article, the argument that the pithecine hominids were evo-hominids and not just a different type of extinct ape, is hardly convincing, so it seems to me, human tracks inferred to be from hominids of an evolutionary history, is a conclusion based on circular reasoning alone. It is far more likely human tracks with five close toes, come from humans if we take the facts. To then say "but humans aren't found" in 3 or 5 million year old rocks, is to argue-from-silence, which I have shown many times, is a poor way to reason and fallacious, since it has been proven wrong so very many times. Those very tracks might well be the very evidence of humanity in rock 5 million years old.

 

By analogy imagine if I said, "but we have no evidence cars have ever drove on this portion of land, in history so they can't be tyre tracks from cars." Yet the tracks fit with being car tyres. That means the very tracks may well disprove the conclusion that cars have not drove on that portion of land ever before.

 

The article that wibble posted had data (from multiple specimens) that showed that australopithecus afarensis had a foramen magnum that was further back than ours (although not as far back as a chimps).  For the bipedalism question, it's not so much a matter of relative location to humans, but more a question of the foramen magnum location relative to the center of mass of the skull.  It makes sense that if you walk upright, then the foramen magnum should be directly beneath the center of mass of the skull...right?  That would certainly lesson the strain on your neck muscles trying to keep your head upright. We humans have much more rounded heads than Lucy.....flat faces, high and large foreheads, etc. Our skull center of mass is going to be forward of Lucy's with her face sloping downward from back to front.  Again, what matters most is where the foramen magnum is relative to the center of mass of the skull.

 

And, this is just one line of reasoning.  What about the australopithecus afarensis knee joint, pelvic bones, humerus and femur (size ratios) that have been discovered that are much more similar to humans than that of the quadraped apes.   It's not hard to hypothesize that Lucy and her kind were far more bipedal than chimpanzees....



#56 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 February 2018 - 02:57 PM

The problem is mate, nobody knows what this means. If we don't study genetics all that much how are we supposed to know?

i gave a good analogy elsewhere and i'll repeat it below:
on the page where this threads title is listed, there are buttons to "rearrange" the thread listing.
clicking on these buttons will give a different thread listing.
you haven't added any information, the program itself wasn't changed in any way, but yet you got a "different animal"

the above essentially explains how and what transposons and epigenetics are.
the information has not increased, the data and program hasn't changed, but yet you got a "different animal".

#57 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 February 2018 - 03:40 PM

 

As for biochemical complexity, that is just argument from ignorance and incredulity.

No. Exactly the opposite. It's an argument from the evidence--evidence that wasn't available in the 19th century or most of the 20th century.

There's no way to escape the fact that any "natural process" whether abiogenesis, macro-evolution or whatever "What If" proposes (which I still don't understand), it has a basis in random chance. And that means it MUST beat those astoundingly adverse probabilities I keep taking about, per protein. And that can't be done in a many trillion trillion years.

 


These astronomical odds you mention relate to things like a particular protein randomly self assembling from scratch in a single attempt but scientists don’t assert that this is what must have happened. The first self replicating molecule would be relatively simple and have faced much better odds on forming by chance, still extremely long odds of course but if there were zillions of concurrent trials occurring in the prebiotic oceans then given millions of years those long odds shorten. Also you must factor in the trillions of planets in the Universe. Molecular biology and genetics are not subjects I have more than a very superficial understanding of though so I’m not going to get into a debate on how cell proteins are evolved.

 

I'm surprised people still accept the fossil record as evidence for evolution. When archaeologists find similar animal fossils in the dirt, they declare the less complex one evolved into the more complex one. They exist, therefore they MUST have evolved. It CAN'T be explained any other way because they refuse to even consider the other possibility.

But a much more logical explanation would be that two models were designed and built instead of just one. There's just as much evidence to support creation as evolution (or more, if we include lack of transitions).

 

I have to assume that your knowledge of the fossil record is extremely sketchy at best and perhaps you’ve only looked at creationist sources for your information because otherwise I’m amazed that you could make that statement. (By the way palaeontologists study fossils, not archaeologists). A global flood would not produce the complex layers of different sedimentary rock layers each containing particular unique fossil assemblages. Only differing environments, changing sea levels and an evolutionary progression of life over long periods of time could account for all that. Just look at the Grand Canyon. Different types of rock stacked in a sequence, each with a unique fossil assemblage. Why would a flood deposit sandstone, then siltstone, then limestone, back to sandstone etc etc ? Near the top of the whole sequence, how would fossilised tracks of desert animals be sandwiched in between layers containing marine fossils ? (YEC response to this last point is that secular scientists are all wrong about this Coconino sandstone being an aeolian (windblown sand) deposit but instead that after two miles of sediment were already laid by the flood there were somehow live animals still around to leave tracks on underwater dunes that somehow get preserved. I hope you can appreciate the absurdity of this idea. Of course there are no body fossils in the Coconino as you would expect of a desert environment as opposed to all the marine layers with associated marine organisms but they don’t want to explain that).

 

Have you heard of index fossils ? They are used to date layers where radiometric dating isn’t possible. An example is given in Mike’s recent post in this thread where foraminifera (microscopic marine animals that have calcareous shells) were used to date the possible hominin tracks that he wanted to be human. This was based on the coexistence of two species of foraminifera in the layers a few metres above and below the tracks. How would a flood settle millions of a particular foraminifera assemblage in a unique section of the entire vertical column (there are different foram species in other sections), and within that have a biped mammal striding through ?
 

I reject the geological column because of the overwhelming physical and historic evidence of a worldwide flood, in addition to the record in Genesis. Why do archaeologists reject the evidence of the flood? They're clearly biased in favor of the answer they want.

 

Because there is plenty of evidence falsifying a worldwide flood (such as the above)

 

All dating methods have a lot of caveats and limitations. No method for older than a few thousand years can be calibrated because we have no subject material whose age can be independently certified. Carbon dating makes one BIG assumption that is almost certainly wrong, and that is that there has been a steady state of C14 in the atmosphere for longer than the measurement period. We don't know the details of how the flood happened, but the atmosphere almost certainly changed. The air pressure was higher. Oxygen was released along with water from the ringwoodite below us. We can't know what other changes there were. So when carbon dating returns an age older than 5000 years, a crucial factor that affects the results has been ignored.

 

C14 has been calibrated back to 14000 years with tree ring data, and beyond using marine corals and speleotherms. It can also be checked against other completely independent methods such as luminescence and electron spin resonance dating.

Saying air pressure was higher and oxygen/water released is special pleading for a start (you have no evidence for it, only speculation from bible stories) and wouldn’t have an impact on C14/C12 ratios anyway.

 

If the evidence supported evolution I would have no problem at all doing that. In fact, I did just that for most of my life. It's only when I actually started looking into the details of how our bodies work that I woke up and rejected evolution.

 

But why does thinking our bodies must be designed make you think we and all other life has only been around for 6000 years after an instant creation ? How does it refute a succession of lifeforms starting about 4.3 billion years ago ?



#58 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 06:28 PM

as far as epigenetics and transposons, both of these in my opinion makes a natural solution to abiogenesis impossible, especially when you throw in a "restart" scenario.

epigenetics most certainly co-evolved with the DNA strand, and i have no idea how transposons acquired tags or how we went from prokaryotes with a preponderance of HGT to eukaryotes with a preponderance of transposons.
even more striking is that HGT and transposons can mimic one another.

 

Why would those things make abiogenesis less likely, even "impossible"?

 

Let's assume, for sake of discussion, epigenetics co-evolved with DNA. No one thinks DNA was the first molecule of inheritance. RNA is much more likely, and it could have been something else like TNA or GNA or FNA. How would epigenetics influence abiogenesis if abiogenesis didn't utilize DNA and, according to you, epigenetics co-evolved with DNA? 

 

How does not knowing how transposons acquire tags to move around the genome make abiogenesis less likely? Are transposons necessary for the first life? Why couldn't this phenomena occur after life was formed? Why couldn't this phenomena be another 'tool' for abiogenesis to work with?



#59 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 February 2018 - 08:27 PM

The science being presented in those cases is still accurate apart from maybe simplifying things a little to suit the level of the students, OH SURE... HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN "SIMPLIFYING THINGS A LITTLE" AND BILL AND LORETA MET ON THE TARMAC TO "TALK ABOUT THE GRANDKIDS" RIGHT?

As usual, I will accept a complete lack of argument and a sarcastic dismissal as a concession.

NO.. THE POINT IS TO BRAINWASH AND INDOCTRINATE THE KIDS FROM THE START TO BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT..

Pretty much exactly the opposite. The quotes Zivkovic referenced came from someone teaching high school sophomores. He has those students for probably at most a year at a time. How long before that will those kids have been told that Earth is 6,000 years old if they were raised in a church/denomination that believes that? What kind of critical thinking skills would they have at the time that starts?When you're fighting against potentially more than a decade of indoctrination, a slightly flawed understanding of the concepts might be the best you can hope for.

‘If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?’ Bora Zivkovic,

Here's the quote from Natalie Wright he's referencing, by the way:

I second comment #3. Bless Mr. Campbell. He was my high school biology teacher, and this article only begins to illustrate all the ways in which he is an amazing teacher. He constantly challenges his students to think for themselves, to analyze, and to test hypotheses rather than simply accept things at face value. He was the first teacher who ever taught me how, not what, to think, and Mr. Campbell is the reason I am now a biologist, studying evolutionary biology. Thank you, Mr. Campbell, and all biology teachers like you, who, in teaching evolution well, nurture the natural curiosity in young minds.

Does this sound like indoctrination to you? I know it does to you specifically, but try to imagine what a person who knows how a Caps Lock works would think.
Sounds like caps affect you so I wont use them with this post..


It is clearly obvious that poor Natalie suffers from a form of Stockholm Syndrome where the brainwashing and indoctrination using lies suggested by Zinovic worked like it was intended to... It worked on you as well also.. It appears that you still claim to believe in it on a website called Evolution fairytale where your religion of accidental apes has been completely demolished in hundreds of different ways..


"‘If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?’ Bora Zivkovic,

#60 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:08 PM

As for biochemical complexity, that is just argument from ignorance and incredulity.

No. Exactly the opposite. It's an argument from the evidence--evidence that wasn't available in the 19th century or most of the 20th century.
There's no way to escape the fact that any "natural process" whether abiogenesis, macro-evolution or whatever "What If" proposes (which I still don't understand), it has a basis in random chance. And that means it MUST beat those astoundingly adverse probabilities I keep taking about, per protein. And that can't be done in a many trillion trillion years.
These astronomical odds you mention relate to things like a particular protein randomly self assembling from scratch in a single attempt but scientists don’t assert that this is what must have happened. The first self replicating molecule would be relatively simple and have faced much better odds on forming by chance, still extremely long odds of course but if there were zillions of concurrent trials occurring in the prebiotic oceans then given millions of years those long odds shorten. Also you must factor in the trillions of planets in the Universe. Molecular biology and genetics are not subjects I have more than a very superficial understanding of though so I’m not going to get into a debate on how cell proteins are evolved.
 

I'm surprised people still accept the fossil record as evidence for evolution. When archaeologists find similar animal fossils in the dirt, they declare the less complex one evolved into the more complex one. They exist, therefore they MUST have evolved. It CAN'T be explained any other way because they refuse to even consider the other possibility.
But a much more logical explanation would be that two models were designed and built instead of just one. There's just as much evidence to support creation as evolution (or more, if we include lack of transitions).

 
I have to assume that your knowledge of the fossil record is extremely sketchy at best and perhaps you’ve only looked at creationist sources for your information because otherwise I’m amazed that you could make that statement. (By the way palaeontologists study fossils, not archaeologists). A global flood would not produce the complex layers of different sedimentary rock layers each containing particular unique fossil assemblages. Only differing environments, changing sea levels and an evolutionary progression of life over long periods of time could account for all that. Just look at the Grand Canyon. Different types of rock stacked in a sequence, each with a unique fossil assemblage. Why would a flood deposit sandstone, then siltstone, then limestone, back to sandstone etc etc ? Near the top of the whole sequence, how would fossilised tracks of desert animals be sandwiched in between layers containing marine fossils ? (YEC response to this last point is that secular scientists are all wrong about this Coconino sandstone being an aeolian (windblown sand) deposit but instead that after two miles of sediment were already laid by the flood there were somehow live animals still around to leave tracks on underwater dunes that somehow get preserved. I hope you can appreciate the absurdity of this idea. Of course there are no body fossils in the Coconino as you would expect of a desert environment as opposed to all the marine layers with associated marine organisms but they don’t want to explain that).
 
Have you heard of index fossils ? They are used to date layers where radiometric dating isn’t possible. An example is given in Mike’s recent post in this thread where foraminifera (microscopic marine animals that have calcareous shells) were used to date the possible hominin tracks that he wanted to be human. This was based on the coexistence of two species of foraminifera in the layers a few metres above and below the tracks. How would a flood settle millions of a particular foraminifera assemblage in a unique section of the entire vertical column (there are different foram species in other sections), and within that have a biped mammal striding through ?
 

I reject the geological column because of the overwhelming physical and historic evidence of a worldwide flood, in addition to the record in Genesis. Why do archaeologists reject the evidence of the flood? They're clearly biased in favor of the answer they want.

 
Because there is plenty of evidence falsifying a worldwide flood (such as the above)
 

All dating methods have a lot of caveats and limitations. No method for older than a few thousand years can be calibrated because we have no subject material whose age can be independently certified. Carbon dating makes one BIG assumption that is almost certainly wrong, and that is that there has been a steady state of C14 in the atmosphere for longer than the measurement period. We don't know the details of how the flood happened, but the atmosphere almost certainly changed. The air pressure was higher. Oxygen was released along with water from the ringwoodite below us. We can't know what other changes there were. So when carbon dating returns an age older than 5000 years, a crucial factor that affects the results has been ignored.

 
C14 has been calibrated back to 14000 years with tree ring data, and beyond using marine corals and speleotherms. It can also be checked against other completely independent methods such as luminescence and electron spin resonance dating.
Saying air pressure was higher and oxygen/water released is special pleading for a start (you have no evidence for it, only speculation from bible stories) and wouldn’t have an impact on C14/C12 ratios anyway.
 

If the evidence supported evolution I would have no problem at all doing that. In fact, I did just that for most of my life. It's only when I actually started looking into the details of how our bodies work that I woke up and rejected evolution.

 
But why does thinking our bodies must be designed make you think we and all other life has only been around for 6000 years after an instant creation ? How does it refute a succession of lifeforms starting about 4.3 billion years ago ?

Because of the irreducible complexity inherent with Man's 10 Interlocked Vital Organs that must all be working together in tandem or we die.. And last time I checked.. Dead creatures dont "Evolve" ..Unless of course the Science Fiction novel about "Long ago and far away" has a chapter that allows for that to happen.. Which of course cannot be challenged without the aid of a Time Machine... Instead of spending so much time and energy trying to find some theoretical pathway for Abiogenesis followed by Microbe to Microbiologist to ever HAVE happened.. Why dont you instead focus on whether it actually DID happen? You are depending on your ability to win a national lottery every day for a month straight. Sure it COULD happen.. But is it LIKELY to happen?


"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users