Jump to content


Photo

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#1 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 December 2010 - 10:06 AM

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

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

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.


I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Myth”.

#2 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 December 2010 - 02:37 PM

It's also noteworthy to mention that despite millions and millions and millions of years that life supposedly has existed on the earth, there are no traces of these capabilities that go back further than the last few thousand years.

Now, what are the chances of that? :D

#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 December 2010 - 08:25 PM

G'day

When we come out of the womb we know little. Most of what we know now is learned from being taught. Scientists often say that we are among the most vulnerable animals when we are babies. I have argued against abortion based on the idea that a baby is less vulnerable inside the womb than he or she is outside. No one has been able to refute that argument.

A lot of what we believe is because of the way we learn, which is through repetition. Stalin & Hitler were both quoted as saying if you tell a lie often enough people will end up believing it. This is true but, it has a corollary. If you tell the truth often enough someone may believe you also.

I only speak one language fluently. That is the one I am communicating to you with now. If you were to put a gun to my head and tell me to speak in Russian, I wouldn't be able to do it. Do I think that proves that the only “true” language is the one that I speak? I think not. I only learned English.

Evolution has been said to be true even though it defies logic. Dawkins’ blind Watchmaker analogy is used to reject what our minds tell us about organizational complexity or design (inference).

Let's take an example. Which of these was intelligently designed, a dog, a horse, a cat, a cow, an automobile, an airplane, a television, a cell phone. As Christians we believe all of them were created by intelligent design. Why would anyone else see it any differently? The answer is that they have been told to-- brainwashed by repetition and authority figures. The media, the educational system, the government all participate in repetitiously saying over and over that the appearance of design is not true. So, it’s pure repetition coupled with social and peer group pressure. “The truth is…”

From what I understand the human mind is a finite source of information. We can only pull out of it what was put into it or what it creates. Darwin created (wrote) the book Origin of Species. Science wants to spin it by saying that Darwin observed based on “evidence” evolution by "natural" selection. Realistically he created the idea of ebo first and then, to support his premise, gathered data that he decided supported his premise. The data was neutral but he “spun” it in his mind and anf it magically became “evidence.” Others sympathetically called it “proof” there be no God and used it to justify their atheism. Darwin became their hero!

Science wants to rewrite history now because they've never been able to establish that a bunch of small random steps brought life into existence from the not living. Now, they seek to distance themselves from those first “simple” steps. Life defies being broken down into a bunch of little simple steps.

Why is evolution believed by anyone? To quote a lyric from South Pacific, the musical, “You have to be carefully taught.”

#4 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 03 December 2010 - 11:50 PM

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

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

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.


I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Myth”.

View Post


I agree, atheistic evolution did not occur. God had a plan for man to fulfill, the evolution of other life forms did not lead to the achievements you have noted.

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 December 2010 - 11:13 AM

I agree, atheistic evolution did not occur. God had a plan for man to fulfill, the evolution of other life forms did not lead to the achievements you have noted.

View Post


Don't get me wrong... There is no evidence for macro-evolution at all. But, at least Theistic evolutionists don't have the same illogical conundrum as atheistic evolutionists. Although they have enough problems of their own, but that is not built into the OP of this thread, so we will not be sidetracked with it.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 December 2010 - 05:25 AM

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

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

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.


I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Myth”.

View Post

Further… Atheistic evolutionists have to deal with their logical (and scientific) morass of “life from nonlife”, and “intelligence from non-intelligence”. Both of which effect ALL evolution from an atheistic standpoint.

#7 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 13 December 2010 - 01:06 AM

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


I just want to lend a balanced view to these thoughts.

In regards to the thought that life is not still evolving from non-life - I think the typical answer from an evolutionist would be that it may very well be happening, but whatever level of life forms are evolving from non-life, they are not as advanced as already existing life, so they are either out-competed for resources or are consumed as food - so we will never be able to actually see new life. Of course, I don't agree with this answer, but it at least would be a logical response to your complaint.

As far as speciation is concerned, according to an evolutionary biologist, speciation has occurred many times in recent history. Species are loosely defined by geologically, socially, or s*xually separated sub-groups. Under these terms, scientists group giraffes into 4 or 5 distinct species based on locals and color patterns. I'm not saying that is an example of macro-evolution, but if you are trying to point out about a lack of speciation, that argument won't fly with an evolutionist.

You'd be better off pointing out something like the lack of evolution from one kingdom to another, or one order to another - but a biologist would simply assert that such large scale evolution takes millions of years - so we obviously wouldn't be observing it.

A question for you is: how much "kind" diversity do you think has occurred since creation? Do you think God initially created 100's of species of bats or beetles? I can't say for certain, but I would venture to say that the number of bats and beetle species was much smaller in the beginning and that adaptation and selection has played out.

Clearly, there is some plasticity in any given animal kind that allows them to adapt certain features to help them survive. The challenge for me is to try and convince an evolutionist that there are boundaries to this adaptation and where the boundaries lie. They will wonder why you can get major changes to a bat's nose and echolocation abilities within a creation model but can't get a combination of other changes that turns the bat into a non-bat.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 December 2010 - 05:17 AM

I just want to lend a balanced view to these thoughts.

View Post

No problem…

In regards to the thought that life is not still evolving from non-life - I think the typical answer from an evolutionist would be that it may very well be happening, but whatever level of life forms are evolving from non-life, they are not as advanced as already existing life, so they are either out-competed for resources or are consumed as food - so we will never be able to actually see new life.  Of course, I don't agree with this answer, but it at least would be a logical response to your complaint.

View Post

That may well be their typical answer, but it is still a faith statement; so, when words like “it may very well be happening” and “so we will never be able to actually see”, they give more of a religious connotation, than that of a scientific inference (remember, this is being addressed toward “Atheistic Evolutionists”). And, neither answer rebuts the question.
The problem for the atheist still remains; “we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter”, “absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural” chemical reactions”.

As far as speciation is concerned, according to an evolutionary biologist, speciation has occurred many times in recent history.  Species are loosely defined by geologically, socially, or s*xually separated sub-groups.  Under these terms, scientists group giraffes into 4 or 5 distinct species based on locals and color patterns.  I'm not saying that is an example of macro-evolution, but if you are trying to point out about a lack of speciation, that argument won't fly with an evolutionist.

View Post

The key words here are “loosely defined”! Which, in-and-of itself infers a lack of empirical knowledge, and therefore a “faith statement”.
And, still, no real evidence for “Macro-evolution”.

You'd be better off pointing out something like the lack of evolution from one kingdom to another, or one order to another  - but a biologist would simply assert that such large scale evolution takes millions of years - so we obviously wouldn't be observing it.

View Post

I disagree. All my points are valid, and can ONLY be rebutted by speculation and faith statements. The materialistic atheist is far more “religious” then they’ll admit.
And the statement “large scale evolution takes millions of years” is simply another “faith statement”, it’s not empirical science. Which of course, is hardly something someone should base their faith (and eternity) on. But that is their choice. So, a biologist making such a statement, isn’t making a “scientifically sound” assertion, but more of a speculation on what they think might happen, or want to happen. It falls more under the logical fallacies of “appeal to belief”, or “Argumentum ad Futuris”. But it still falls under the “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum” logical fallacy; and that is to- believe that to state a belief, or to state it repeatedly, vigorously, or sincerely is somehow to demonstrate or to substantiate the veracity of that belief. But, without the actual evidence, one is simply making a faith statement.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 December 2010 - 05:19 AM

A question for you is:  how much "kind" diversity do you think has occurred since creation?  Do you think God initially created 100's of species of bats or beetles?  I can't say for certain, but I would venture to say that the number of bats and beetle species was much smaller in the beginning and that adaptation and selection has played out.

View Post

A bat is still a bat, and a beetle is still a beetle, no matter someone attempts to redefine kind/species to fit within the parameters of macro-evolution. Further, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that a bat has ever been anything other than a bat, or a beetle anything other than a beetle. Thus, further negating macro-evolutionary modeling.

Clearly, there is some plasticity in any given animal kind that allows them to adapt certain features to help them survive.  The challenge for me is to try and convince an evolutionist that there are boundaries to this adaptation and where the boundaries lie.  They will wonder why you can get major changes to a bat's nose and echolocation abilities within a creation model but can't get a combination of other changes that turns the bat into a non-bat.

View Post

Again, a bat is still a bat, no matter what its nose looks like. And, ALL the evidence adduced show that all bats have had relatively the SAME “historical record of achievement”, throughout ALL history!
Which takes us right back to the one of the OP’s main points (which has yet to be addressed, I might add):

After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

View Post



#10 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 December 2010 - 07:21 AM

Okay, heres my two cents in this discussion.

First of all, i dont think many evolutionists are claiming that Abiogenesis, or the creation of life from non-life, MUST be continuing today. So the first part of your first point, i feel is a bit unnecessary. To the second part of your first point, speciation, or the splitting of species, has been observed, and the only way to refute this is to change the scientific definition of what constitutes as a species. If you have good reason to refute the current scientific definition of a species, id really like to hear it, but under its current definition, speciation, or the changing of one species into another species has been observed.

As to your second point, the reason why Only man has the historical record of achievement, is because Man was the only one with the ability to record their own history. But i find the problem of this argument to be its own crux; Has any being, other than a whale, been capable of achieving its massive size? Has any being other than a Cheetah, been capable of achieving the 70 mile per hour running speed? Ignoring the fact that we can recognize different animals BECAUSE of its differences, and that if every animal was the same, we wouldnt be able to differentiate it from another animal, every animal has some sort of ability that separates itself from the herd, so to say, and some to the point that they stand out as the best at what they do.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:36 AM

Okay, heres my two cents in this discussion.

View Post

Okay…

First of all, i dont think many evolutionists are claiming that Abiogenesis, or the creation of life from non-life, MUST be continuing today. So the first part of your first point, i feel is a bit unnecessary.

View Post


Actually, if Abiogenesis (or anything like it) happened just once, then it logically follows that it would happen again (and again). It then further follows, that it would be going on today as well. Therefore, the first point(s) is (are) very necessary. Therefore, it/they are logical, rational and scientifically sound.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not.

To the second part of your first point, speciation, or the splitting of species, has been observed, and the only way to refute this is to change the scientific definition of what constitutes as a species. If you have good reason to refute the current scientific definition of a species, id really like to hear it, but under its current definition, speciation, or the changing of one species into another species has been observed.

View Post


Actually, the only way to “prove it” (speciation) is to change the meaning of kind/species so that it fits within the parameters of macroevolution. But, ALL dogs are dogs, all cats are cats, all bats are bats, all birds are birds (etcetera…). We have never observed a dog “macro-evolving” into anything else. Nor have we seen a cat, bat, bird (etcetera…) evolving into anything else. If you have a good evidence (other than to promulgate macroevolution) that proves a dog “evolving” into something else, or a cat “evolving into anything else” I’d really like to hear it (see it etcetera…). And simply “changing” the definition to meet macro-evolutionary needs isn’t a good enough excuse.

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:37 AM

As to your second point, the reason why Only man has the historical record of achievement, is because Man was the only one with the ability to record their own history.

View Post



Which, of course only strengthens my point, and weakens that of atheistic macro-evolution; and does absolutely nothing to help the evolutionary model against the other examples I provided. Besides, I only scratched the surface with the plethora of examples I can provide.

But i find the problem of this argument to be its own crux; Has any being, other than a whale, been capable of achieving its massive size?

View Post


First, there is absolutely no evidence that whales are any different than they’ve always been.

Second, there is absolutely no evidence that the whale had one whit to do with its condition. Man, on the other hand has a massive amount of evidence to prove his achievements. Therefore, your point is null and void of anything other than speculation.

Has any being other than a Cheetah, been capable of achieving the 70 mile per hour running speed?

View Post


Absolutely! In fact, every vehicle I personally own, far exceeds 70 mile per hour running speed. But, I don’t think that is what you are alluding to. Nor, does what you’re alluding to fit within the parameters of the OP. Unless you can provide evidence where the Cheetah thought up, designed, fabricated, tested and brought into production, the means for it’s speed. You see, there is absolutely NO evidence that the cheetah has not ALWAYS been able run as fast as it does. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence that the cheetah had anything to do with this ability. Although, it does look like a very good design feature.

Ignoring the fact that we can recognize different animals BECAUSE of its differences, and that if every animal was the same, we wouldnt be able to differentiate it from another animal, every animal has some sort of ability that separates itself from the herd, so to say, and some to the point that they stand out as the best at what they do.

View Post


Ignoring the FACT that they (all other creatures than man) bear absolutely no evidences that THEY had anything to do with the abilities we possess, is striking. And your totally ignoring that man is the “ONLY” creature with the ability to create and improve upon ALL the abilities of ALL the other creatures. And do so in a FAR SUPEROIR manner, only defeats the model of atheistic macro-evolution further!
It is totally illogical (rationally AND scientifically) that man, and no other creature, in the so-called millions (or billions) of years of so-called evolution, has achieved so much, and NO other creature has done much of anything.

#13 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 December 2010 - 01:21 PM

A question for you is:  how much "kind" diversity do you think has occurred since creation?  Do you think God initially created 100's of species of bats or beetles?  I can't say for certain, but I would venture to say that the number of bats and beetle species was much smaller in the beginning and that adaptation and selection has played out.

Clearly, there is some plasticity in any given animal kind that allows them to adapt certain features to help them survive.  The challenge for me is to try and convince an evolutionist that there are boundaries to this adaptation and where the boundaries  lie.  They will wonder why you can get major changes to a bat's nose and echolocation abilities within a creation model but can't get a combination of other changes that turns the bat into a non-bat.

View Post

I would like to see more on this boundary as it is an argument I see a lot.

I do find it interesting that speciation has played out in observable time and it has happened much more rapidly than it should according to the typical evolutionary timeline and maths needed for mutations.


No problem…
That may well be their typical answer, but it is still a faith statement; so, when words like “it may very well be happening” and “so we will never be able to actually see”, they give more of a religious connotation, than that of a scientific inference (remember, this is being addressed toward “Atheistic Evolutionists”). And, neither answer rebuts the question.

View Post

Good point.

#14 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 December 2010 - 01:26 PM

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:35 PM

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

View Post


There is a quote box limit. That's why there is usually more than one post. Of course I'm not entirely sure what the quote box limit number is, it's not much.

#16 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:54 PM

There is a quote box limit. That's why there is usually more than one post.  Of course I'm not entirely sure what the quote box limit number is, it's not much.

View Post

http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=952

It is 10.

#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 December 2010 - 04:48 PM

I just want to lend a balanced view to these thoughts.

As far as speciation is concerned, according to an evolutionary biologist, speciation has occurred many times in recent history.  Species are loosely defined by geologically, socially, or s*xually separated sub-groups.  Under these terms, scientists group giraffes into 4 or 5 distinct species based on locals and color patterns.  I'm not saying that is an example of macro-evolution, but if you are trying to point out about a lack of speciation, that argument won't fly with an evolutionist.

View Post

Hi Air Run,

Yes. On speciation I wanted to comment briefly. A species is a variation of a former ancestor or ancestors. It is defined by as you said. I am visually oriented, rather than philosophical, so I like examples. Dogs---> speciation unequivocally. And we know it was done by directed breeding. So I don't have a problem with speciation. Speciation is basically isolating allelles that express in the phenotype. But that is a far cry from macroevolution, and the evolutionist knows it, if he knows anything at all about genetics.

SOme evos like to lump this in with other like examples, and call it "evidence." But all it is is a bait and switch--not genuine science when you use an unfair example to demonstrate something totally different.

Operational disciplines quantify, define, and demonstrate, using data to give conclusions that are equivalent to the data.

Therefore, technically, neither creationism, nor macroevolution are operational sciences, they are historical science. Genetics and the principles within it ARE operational science, but not extrapolations and hypotheses made on the past history of life.

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:13 PM

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

View Post


The word limit is mainly for one liners that contribute nothing and those who love to copy and paste big long answers from some where else. We frown on both.

Also, if it's quote boxes you are speaking of. You can read my sig about that.

You can quote as many different members as you like. But each post can only have 10 quote boxes. It's a forum program limit we cannot change and we have to abide by it as well.

#19 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:48 PM

So I don't have a problem with speciation. Speciation is basically isolating allelles that express in the phenotype. But that is a far cry from macroevolution, and the evolutionist knows it, if he knows anything at all about genetics.


I agree - which is why I suggested Ron not focus on speciation - because that's small potatoes, and a reason why Tkubok is challenging him on the point.

A better boundary from a creationist perspective might be family.
Under the family Canidae you have dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackels - and I can see these species descending from the original members of the Caniade family.

QUOTE(Tkubok @ Dec 13 2010, 10:21 AM)
Has any being other than a Cheetah, been capable of achieving the 70 mile per hour running speed?

I think Tkubok's point is that all animals have distinctions - ours is intelligence and creativity - but in the grand scheme of things that's not qualitatively better than whales being big or cheetahs being fast.

I don't agree with him on this point - and I think if he were honest with himself he would agree that the intelligence of humans is qualitatively better (quite significantly) than the unique abilities of other animals. Even if you only look at it from a survivalist standpoint, the intelligence of humans gives us the upper hand over other creatures.

I don't know if Tkubok has children, but if he supposes that all traits are qualitatively equal - I wonder if he would be satisfied if his child grew up to be the best rock thrower in the world yet never learned to speak, walk, read, or wipe his nose (assuming he had the mental capabilities to learn these things).

#20 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

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

Posted 14 December 2010 - 03:09 AM

]Ah, okay, thanks for that reply, now i understand.


Actually, if Abiogenesis (or anything like it) happened just once, then it logically follows that it would happen again (and again). It then further follows, that it would be going on today as well. Therefore, the first point(s) is (are) very necessary. Therefore, it/they are logical, rational and scientifically sound.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not.

Actually, no it wouldnt, and this is really easy to demonstrate. Lets say, i have 5 dice, and i place them in a cup, randomly shake them around, and roll them onto a wooden table. Now, from there, lets say we recorded the exact location of the dice on the table, the number that was facing up, even the angle of the dice.

What are the requirements, to repeat such a feat, with each dice in its exact same location, angle, and face? Quite difficult, wouldnt you say? You would have to calculate and replicate the exact speed of the hand that tossed the dice, the precise release time, etc. But, its not impossible, as clearly it was done once before.

The fact that something occurred before, doesnt mean it will never occur again, but unless the specific requirements are duplicated, you will not likely to see it occur again. Maybe you are aware of a proto-earth condition that exists on this planet right now, but i sure dont.


Actually, the only way to “prove it” (speciation) is to change the meaning of kind/species so that it fits within the parameters of macroevolution. But, ALL dogs are dogs, all cats are cats, all bats are bats, all birds are birds (etcetera…). We have never observed a dog “macro-evolving” into anything else. Nor have we seen a cat, bat, bird (etcetera…) evolving into anything else. If you have a good evidence (other than to promulgate macroevolution) that proves a dog “evolving” into something else, or a cat “evolving into anything else” I’d really like to hear it (see it etcetera…). And simply “changing” the definition to meet macro-evolutionary needs isn’t a good enough excuse.

View Post

Ive managed to read some of the other posts, which seems to me, to indicate that your beef with speciation isnt that it hasnt occurred at all, but rather the degree to which it occurs. Are what the others saying regarding your beliefs about speciation, true?



Which, of course only strengthens my point, and weakens that of atheistic macro-evolution; and does absolutely nothing to help the evolutionary model against the other examples I provided.  Besides, I only scratched the surface with the plethora of examples I can provide.


I am willing to bet that most of your examples has to do with one attribute in humans; Intelligence. In any case, i was simply providing a simple answer to your question. Let us continue with our discussion, shall we? :)

First, there is absolutely no evidence that whales are any different than they’ve always been.

Second, there is absolutely no evidence that the whale had one whit to do with its condition.  Man, on the other hand has a massive amount of evidence to prove his achievements. Therefore, your point is null and void of anything other than speculation.

I am not making the argument that whales are different. Although, of course, i would disagree, i dont know if discussing the evidence of common ancestry would constitute as derailing this argument. I only used the word "Acheive" because you used it, but the crux of the problem doesnt lie in that word, but rather, in the intelligence of human beings.

Humans haven't "Acheived" their attribute of intelligence. The human brain wasnt different 2000 years ago, than it is now, and ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Hippocrates and Plato are brilliant, intelligent thinkers in their own right. We've been able to increase our knowledge, but we haven't necessarily become more, or less, intelligent than we were 3000, 4000 years ago. The attribute that humans hold, that is, intelligence, is the same as the attribute that whales hold, i.e. their size. Like the size of whales, this attribute in humans fluctuates, as you can have people who are great, brilliant thinkers, and you can have people who couldnt understand why fire is so hot. But there is no acheivement here.

And with that in mind, we, or atleast I, was talking about specific attributes that animals have, and not how they obtained those attributes.

As to your second point, not at all. Humans are, as most animals are, curious, and are proned to trying to understand the world around them. Its why we call it human nature, because it really is human nature. Humans are proned and bound to this, just like whales are bound to their own attributes, and could not decide to change if they could. Whether or not this is because a God placed this pre-programmed nature into us or not, doesnt change the fact that a human, especially if he wasnt taught by other humans regarding society, rules, and norms, will be proned to acting out their nature.

Absolutely! In fact, every vehicle I personally own, far exceeds 70 mile per hour running speed. But, I don’t think that is what you are alluding to. Nor, does what you’re alluding to fit within the parameters of the OP. Unless you can provide evidence where the Cheetah thought up, designed, fabricated, tested and brought into production, the means for it’s speed. You see, there is absolutely NO evidence that the cheetah has not ALWAYS been able run as fast as it does. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence that the cheetah had anything to do with this ability. Although, it does look like a very good design feature.



This, again, brings me back to the point i was making above. Everything that you listed there, all points to a single attribute of mankind, that is, intelligence. Just like the attribute of a cheetah is for it to run very fast, the attribute of humans is intelligence. There is no evidence to point to the fact that humans, 2000 years, or even 4000, 6000 years ago, had a brain that was so different than modern humans, that they were incapable of learning, for example, the atomic theory, if they were taught from birth the necessary language and knowledge.

Ignoring the FACT that they (all other creatures than man) bear absolutely no evidences that THEY had anything to do with the abilities we possess, is striking. And your totally ignoring that man is the “ONLY” creature with the ability to create and improve upon ALL the abilities of ALL the other creatures. And do so in a FAR SUPEROIR manner, only defeats the model of atheistic macro-evolution further! 
It is totally illogical (rationally AND scientifically) that man, and no other creature, in the so-called millions (or billions) of years of so-called evolution, has achieved so much, and NO other creature has done much of anything.

View Post


I havent ignored that. Infact, i mentioned it, by pointing out that the attribute of human beings is intelligence. Although i wouldnt say that we've improved ALL the abilities of other creatures, id agree that we are getting closer and closer, yet in many ways, we are so far off. But the problem with that argument, is this. Much of our knowledge, our understand, our technologies, are based off of that of nature. I think Isaac Newton put it very aptly when he said "If i have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulder of giants". These creatures have done so much, and man has recognized this by mimicking them in many aspects. Its also why so many plants are the basis for many of the pharmaceutical breakthroughs.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users