Jump to content


Photo

On Evolution's Credibility


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

#121 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:02 PM

Only a handful of people tried to make manned flight a reality. The rest spent their time trying to make more money on buggy whips.

It's different today. The handful who are working on abiogenesis are supported and encouraged by the rest.


I am one semester away from a degree, I certainly won't be supporting nor encouraging the pointless wasteful endeavour of abiogenesis.... (Yes there are scientists who disagree with you, I have stated this before, yet you keep carrying on as if all the scientists agree with you)

#122 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:04 PM

Flight and evolution / abiogenesis are totally different things hence your attempt to make one seem more possible by referring it with the other is a slight of hand.


Explain the difference.

Possibly missed some other points however all of these criteria must be met for the "evidence" to be deemed actual evidence in my opinion. Yet all these points are fair and rational and are what one should expect of evidence of such a claim


Suppose all of your criteria were met except that there was human intervention but the biochemists were "still working" on eliminating that?

#123 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:10 PM

I am one semester away from a degree, I certainly won't be supporting nor encouraging the pointless wasteful endeavour of abiogenesis....


Best of luck in your career. (If somebody paid you a bucket of money to work on abiogenesis, would you really turn it down? Posted Image )

(Yes there are scientists who disagree with you, I have stated this before, yet you keep carrying on as if all the scientists agree with you)


I mentioned the Steves who are biologists and accept evolution. Their names are available online. I don't recall you naming anybody who agrees with you.

#124 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:31 PM

Only a handful of people tried to make manned flight a reality. The rest spent their time trying to make more money on buggy whips.

It's different today. The handful who are working on abiogenesis are supported and encouraged by the rest.


Other than a better understanding of biochemistry which we will pursue and discover anyway, what benefit is there in researching the biochemical possibility of abiogenesis? I am not seeing the connection with manned flight...

#125 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:04 PM

Other than a better understanding of biochemistry which we will pursue and discover anyway, what benefit is there in researching the biochemical possibility of abiogenesis? I am not seeing the connection with manned flight...


Few people foresaw the value of manned flight in 1902. We don't have to anticipate all of the implications before we try to do something. A mountain is worth climbing because it's there. The desire to discover new things is characteristic of humans (exept creationists ;) ).

#126 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 July 2012 - 04:55 PM

Few people foresaw the value of manned flight in 1902. We don't have to anticipate all of the implications before we try to do something. A mountain is worth climbing because it's there. The desire to discover new things is characteristic of humans (exept creationists Posted Image ).


WARNING: Ad hominem attacks and trolling will not be tolerated on this forum. Your posting ability will be suspended pending further review.

#127 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:53 AM

Best of luck in your career. (If somebody paid you a bucket of money to work on abiogenesis, would you really turn it down? Posted Image )



I mentioned the Steves who are biologists and accept evolution. Their names are available online. I don't recall you naming anybody who agrees with you.


Thanks... No I still wouldn't, wasn't I just saying how abiogenesis is a waste of money.... and here you are suggesting people throw money at the problem....

And as I said claiming "we have more people" is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum... (You don't read my replies do you?).. Just to re-iterate it is a proven logical fallacy, continuing to claim it doesn't make it more right, it only makes you look more silly since you continue to use a false argument even after being shown (multiple times) how it is false.



Explain the difference.



Suppose all of your criteria were met except that there was human intervention but the biochemists were "still working" on eliminating that?


You are honestly asking me to explain the difference between flight and abiogenesis.....

- flight is observed
- flight can be empirically tested
- flight fits within the laws of nature and the characteristics of reality we observe
- flight is proven via demonstration
-etc etc etc etc

Why ask such a silly question?



Firstly you are dealing with hypotheticals, secondly human intervention merely demonstrates the requirement of intelligence. The "science is working on it" excuse is an argument to future evidence, (yet another logical fallacy), you can see my thread about Dawkins use of the phrase and how he is being unscientific and appeals to faith each time he claims it.

http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=4926


Furthermore I ask you to re-read what I have already wrote on your use of this logical fallacy, since it seems that you continue to "forget" my posts and how they demonstrate where you err. Continued use of logical fallacies will only make you look silly.

#128 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:29 AM

The argument is about the possibility of an event. I'm saying that you shouldn't be claiming something is impossible just because it isn't understood yet.

(You guys really need to make more of an effort to understand an argument instead of just nitpicking schoolboy logic. Posted Image )


The scientific facts are clear that it is impossible. That is not an argument from ignorance, but a statement of fact.

Proteins do not combine to make a cell; Therefore, proteins must have been produced by genes in the DNA of the first life form. Natural selection can not select anything unless there is already a self replicating genome in place and that selection would only work to reduce variation.

Even if DNA came first, you still wouldn't have life since DNA is just a blueprint for life and not life itself. So, abiogeneiss violates the law of biogenesis. A fully formed body isn't life either since God created Adam from dust and then blew the breath of life into his nostrils. If life was just chemical, then there would be no death and there would be no reason why millions of DNA samples in labs today couldn't self replicate and crawl away. In fact, all DNA samples have to be kept in cold storage because they quickly degrade.

#129 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 15 July 2012 - 07:39 PM

It seems curious that you believe textbook diagrams instead of actually looking at the rocks themselves. Flowering plants didn't appear until the cretaceous, yet we can find them beneath cambrian fossils in three different countries.

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html

Michael Cremo has never looked at the rocks themselves. He is not a geologist - he is a Hindu Creationist working out of Los Angeles. His research paper doesn't report on new work. It rehashes old arguments. The evidence is from old findings from 1947. One researcher described the findings as ""unidentifiable brownish markings, possibly organic". A geologist who genuinely found Eocene remains in Cambrian rock would become famous. The reports of anomalous fossils are all very dubious. Have a look at John Woodmaropes list of 200 anomolously ocurring fossils at http://www.nwcreatio.../anomalies.html Its pathetic. Any geologist can immediately see rational explanations for every single one of them. JB Haldane when asked what would disprove evolution famously responded "rabbits in the Pre Cambrian". No anomolous fossil cited has come even close to such a finding.
I am not a geologist - I am a mining engineer - but I know that geology works - its how we find mineral deposits. Its why oil companies and mining companies employ geologists. Creation Science has never found a valuable mineral deposit - but the sciences of geology and paleontology have found thousands of them. Oil companies and mining companies don't care about overturning scientific dogma. They want results - and you don't get results by thinking that geologic science is circular. And incidently the Salt Ranges cited by Cremo have been extensively studied in recent years by petroleum geologists. None have them have comne back with findings of Eocene fossils.

#130 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 July 2012 - 02:13 PM

Now, to begin with i will plainly admit that some of the examples cited by certain creationists such as the complexity of the Bombardier beetle and the intricate chemical reactions involved seemed as if it were compelling evidence to challenge the evolutionary theory. However, when viewed against the backdrop of the overwhelming independent, neutrally gathered data in favor of it, i'm afraid that there cannot be any serious challenge to it using scientifically acceptable methods.

It is possible to contend that natural selection is not the sole principle involved, but the fact that organisms have evolved, is a very hard one to dispute credibly. Take, for example the information shown by DNA, why is there a 95 per cent similarity shown between humans and chimpanzees, which is greater than humans and say, any other animal form? Why is there a common lettered code between all organisms at all? Then there is the fossil record. It seems curious that at a certain fixed depth in the vertical geological column, all fossils are similar and vary as you go higher or lower. The very existence of the skeletal remains of creatures in the depths of the earth which are no longer found today strongly supports the idea of a slow, gradual change over time.

Moreover, biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most readily established facts in science. DNA sequences aside, the shared sets of bio chemical and morphological traits amongst species, plus the fact that it is possible to sub divide organisms into 'families' (mammals, reptiles, birds etc) all logically point toward a common ancestry of each of the said groups, and it is'nt really much of a stretch to ascertain a common descent between all living organisms from there.

I will assert, though that the theological implications of all this have been overrated. It is very much possible, at least to my mind for there to have been a guiding force which caused the conditions which allowed this evolution to occur. In conclusion, i will reiterate that the evidence is in favor of common ancestry of species and of descent with modification in response to environmental changes over the slow, gradual process of millions of years and thus the burden of proof is with the skeptics to prove otherwise.

EDIT: I'd just like to add, simply because species have not been observed to change into new species after birth does'nt falsify evolution. Any more than the fact that we cannot use a measuring tape to measure the distance between our planet and the stars makes parallax false etc.




Hmm. Lets see. Five percent of 3,5 billion genes in the human genome would be 175,000,000 gnetic differences.

And then there are fleas and plants that have more genes than humans.
See PBS's Things Darwin Never Knew. From this one can easily conclude that there is something more in play in life forms than pure genetics.

Consider the difference in ouput of a chimp's mind vs a human's mind. Moreover, there is not enough genetic code in a human cell to code for a human's personality.
similar?

#131 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:46 PM

Hmm. Lets see. Five percent of 3,5 billion genes in the human genome would be 175,000,000 gnetic differences.

And then there are fleas and plants that have more genes than humans.
See PBS's Things Darwin Never Knew. From this one can easily conclude that there is something more in play in life forms than pure genetics.

Consider the difference in ouput of a chimp's mind vs a human's mind. Moreover, there is not enough genetic code in a human cell to code for a human's personality.
similar?


Not to mention the differences caused via post-transcriptional changes.

As far as I know the DNA % is worked out from coding genes only... Yet scientists now realise that their initial assumption of "junk DNA" was entirely false, this then would mean that DNA analysis should include the entire genome of organisms rather than just the coding parts. To my knowledge such analysis hasn't been undertaken.

#132 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 July 2012 - 01:17 AM

Michael Cremo has never looked at the rocks themselves. He is not a geologist - he is a Hindu Creationist working out of Los Angeles. His research paper doesn't report on new work. It rehashes old arguments.


Hence the reason he provides a long list of references that are geologists.

The evidence is from old findings from 1947. One researcher described the findings as ""unidentifiable brownish markings, possibly organic.


So being yesterday means it's solved? And Yes. A two foot diameter tree trunk just might have organic origins.


A geologist who genuinely found Eocene remains in Cambrian rock would become famous.


Replace famous with ignored and you might be on to something.


The reports of anomalous fossils are all very dubious. Have a look at John Woodmaropes list of 200 anomolously ocurring fossils at http://www.nwcreatio.../anomalies.html Its pathetic. Any geologist can immediately see rational explanations for every single one of them. JB Haldane when asked what would disprove evolution famously responded "rabbits in the Pre Cambrian". No anomolous fossil cited has come even close to such a finding.


You just provided a list of 200 hundred of them yourself. So, it would take just one more? One of the more rational explanations would include classifying a bird track in the Permian Hermit Shale as undescribed (Gilmore 1927).


I am not a geologist - I am a mining engineer - but I know that geology works - its how we find mineral deposits. Its why oil companies and mining companies employ geologists. Creation Science has never found a valuable mineral deposit - but the sciences of geology and paleontology have found thousands of them.


Here's where it becomes necessary to employ anti-history to make ones self numb to reality. The fathers of both geology and paleontology were both creationists. In fact, all of the sciences that are claimed to support evolution were pioneered by creationists.

Oil companies and mining companies don't care about overturning scientific dogma. They want results - and you don't get results by thinking that geologic science is circular. And incidently the Salt Ranges cited by Cremo have been extensively studied in recent years by petroleum geologists. None have them have comne back with findings of Eocene fossils.


And yet, being unaware of the previous controversy, they declared that the saltrange is in a natural position below cambrian purple sandastone and is early cambrian/pre cambrian in age. So it is true that they weren't there looking for fossils - they were looking for oil and had no motivation to try and explain an underthrust where one didn't exist.


Enjoy.

#133 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:38 PM


  • Posted Imagejason777, on 18 June 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

    It seems curious that you believe textbook diagrams instead of actually looking at the rocks themselves. Flowering plants didn't appear until the cretaceous, yet we can find them beneath cambrian fossils in three different countries.

    http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html

    Michael Cremo has never looked at the rocks themselves. He is not a geologist - he is a Hindu Creationist working out of Los Angeles. His research paper doesn't report on new work. It rehashes old arguments. The evidence is from old findings from 1947. One researcher described the findings as ""unidentifiable brownish markings, possibly organic". A geologist who genuinely found Eocene remains in Cambrian rock would become famous. The reports of anomalous fossils are all very dubious. Have a look at John Woodmaropes list of 200 anomolously ocurring fossils at http://www.nwcreatio.../anomalies.html Its pathetic. Any geologist can immediately see rational explanations for every single one of them. JB Haldane when asked what would disprove evolution famously responded "rabbits in the Pre Cambrian". No anomolous fossil cited has come even close to such a finding.
    I am not a geologist - I am a mining engineer - but I know that geology works - its how we find mineral deposits. Its why oil companies and mining companies employ geologists. Creation Science has never found a valuable mineral deposit - but the sciences of geology and paleontology have found thousands of them. Oil companies and mining companies don't care about overturning scientific dogma. They want results - and you don't get results by thinking that geologic science is circular. And incidently the Salt Ranges cited by Cremo have been extensively studied in recent years by petroleum geologists. None have them have comne back with findings of Eocene fossils


#134 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 17 July 2012 - 10:33 PM

  • Posted Imagejason777, on 18 June 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

    It seems curious that you believe textbook diagrams instead of actually looking at the rocks themselves. Flowering plants didn't appear until the cretaceous, yet we can find them beneath cambrian fossils in three different countries.

    http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html

    Michael Cremo has never looked at the rocks themselves. He is not a geologist - he is a Hindu Creationist working out of Los Angeles. His research paper doesn't report on new work. It rehashes old arguments. The evidence is from old findings from 1947. One researcher described the findings as ""unidentifiable brownish markings, possibly organic". A geologist who genuinely found Eocene remains in Cambrian rock would become famous. The reports of anomalous fossils are all very dubious. Have a look at John Woodmaropes list of 200 anomolously ocurring fossils at http://www.nwcreatio.../anomalies.html Its pathetic. Any geologist can immediately see rational explanations for every single one of them. JB Haldane when asked what would disprove evolution famously responded "rabbits in the Pre Cambrian". No anomolous fossil cited has come even close to such a finding.
    I am not a geologist - I am a mining engineer - but I know that geology works - its how we find mineral deposits. Its why oil companies and mining companies employ geologists. Creation Science has never found a valuable mineral deposit - but the sciences of geology and paleontology have found thousands of them. Oil companies and mining companies don't care about overturning scientific dogma. They want results - and you don't get results by thinking that geologic science is circular. And incidently the Salt Ranges cited by Cremo have been extensively studied in recent years by petroleum geologists. None have them have comne back with findings of Eocene fossils









Repeating your old reply isn't an actual reply to Jason, you haven't addressed any of his points.

#135 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 17 July 2012 - 10:52 PM

Repeating your old reply isn't an actual reply to Jason, you haven't addressed any of his points.


Posted Image That's a good one gilbo, requoting him four times. I think he may have accidentally pasted the the text from his original post instead of pasting his reply, but, then again, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

#136 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 17 July 2012 - 11:09 PM

Posted Image That's a good one gilbo, requoting him four times. I think he may have accidentally pasted the the text from his original post instead of pasting his reply, but, then again, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Lol that wasn't meant to happen, I think my mouse is playing up sometimes :D

Yeah he may have done that, who knows?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users