Jump to content


As In Bean...


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Delphiki_*

Guest_Delphiki_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2010 - 05:41 AM

New here. I felt it might be helpful to users here and myself if I joined. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what evolution is and how it works. I'm not a scientist with a degree, but I'm very familiar with the subject. I intend to prove that you don't need to be a professional biologist to understand evolutionary theory, and to also help people distinguish the difference between the word "theory" in a vernacular sense and "theory" in the scientific sense.

If faith matters, the closest option I saw when registering to describe myself is agnostic. Although, I'm a bit of a deist/pantheist in a lot of ways. My faith in a god simply is there to satisfy my need to thank someone or something for the infinite wonder that is the universe. I simply feel compelled to direct my gratitude somewhere, and having faith in a god as the existence of all things discovered and unknown, is the only way to satisfy that. I don't assume I know what happens when you die, as I also think the existence of souls are unprovable (just like god). The moment you give evidence for something supernatural, it's no longer supernatural.

Despite this admittedly foolish belief, you'll find me agreeing with atheists 99% of the time. The 1% is when they prejudge people of faith inappropriately.

So that's it for my introduction -- now to begin lurking the forums in between reports at work.

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 05 May 2010 - 11:41 AM

Aw, shucks...
Posted Image

I don't think there's much confusion about what evolution is. I think the confusion is in finding evidence for evolution. Having said that, everyone is open to their own interpretation I suppose. But empirical evidence is another story all together.

#3 Guest_Delphiki_*

Guest_Delphiki_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2010 - 12:26 PM

Aw, shucks...
Posted Image

I don't think there's much confusion about what evolution is. I think the confusion is in finding evidence for evolution. Having said that, everyone is open to their own interpretation I suppose. But empirical evidence is another story all together.

View Post



I don't doubt this conversation has already been had on here before if this forums been around for any length of time, but if you're looking for evidence of evolution, it's pretty much all over the place. The most blatant would probably be the morphological similarities between most animals and their coinciding genetic similarity.

That said, with the evidence abound, there's not even any questionable evidence for creation, let alone any at all aside from religious doctrine and folk tales (depending on who's version of creation you're referencing).

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 10 May 2010 - 07:02 AM

That said, with the evidence abound, there's not even any questionable evidence for creation, let alone any at all aside from religious doctrine and folk tales (depending on who's version of creation you're referencing).

View Post


Amongst the many-many credible arguments for creation:

The Big Bang

The fact that we exist

Plus:

There is no credible evidence for atheism (other than the philosophical claims).

There is no credible evidence to support staunch Agnosticism (other than the philosophical claims).

And as far as evolution is concerned, it needs creation (both logically and scientifically) to even be an argument, as it doesn't have an answer for origins. And creation doesn't need evolution to be a viable arguement

#5 Zyphka

Zyphka

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 16
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Michigan

Posted 10 May 2010 - 05:25 PM

Amongst the many-many credible arguments for creation:

The Big Bang

The fact that we exist


The Big Bang doesn't give us evidence of creation, and if it did, it would be creation of energy and matter, not life specifically. I'm not really sure what you mean when you provide "the fact that we exist" as evidence.

There is no credible evidence for atheism (other than the philosophical claims).

There is no credible evidence to support staunch Agnosticism (other than the philosophical claims).


Don't change the topic from discrediting evolution to atheism and agnosticism--Delphiki is talking about evolution. Not to mention the fact that talking about "evidence" for atheism shows a misunderstanding of what atheism even is.

And as far as evolution is concerned, it needs creation (both logically and scientifically) to even be an argument, as it doesn't have an answer for origins. And creation doesn't need evolution to be a viable arguement


Evolution doesn't attempt to answer anything about the origins of life itself--it attempts to explain the diversity and intelligence of life that we find today. You are right that it presupposes some kind of beginning to life (in your case creation). You are also right that creation doesn't require evolution to be a viable argument, simply because it isn't a viable argument in the first place.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 May 2010 - 05:23 AM

The Big Bang doesn't give us evidence of creation, and if it did, it would be creation of energy and matter, not life specifically. I'm not really sure what you mean when you provide "the fact that we exist" as evidence.

View Post


Actually, it does lend credence to the evidence for creation (whether you like it or not), and is opposed to steady state or everything coming from nothing models. The fact that we exist proves that we didn’t come from nothing. All the logical, rational and scientific evidence we have points to the fact that something comes from something (and not from nothing), life comes from life (not non-life). The evidence itself begs the question “why is there something, and not nothing? The very fact that we exist is evidence for creation!


Don't change the topic from discrediting evolution to atheism and agnosticism--Delphiki is talking about evolution. Not to mention the fact that talking about "evidence" for atheism shows a misunderstanding of what atheism even is.

View Post


This is not “changing the subject” but expanding upon Delphiki’s false assertion:

That said, with the evidence abound, there's not even any questionable evidence for creation, let alone any at all aside from religious doctrine and folk tales (depending on who's version of creation you're referencing).

View Post


Evolution doesn’t debunk creation, if anything evolution supports the fact that “from nothing, nothing comes”. This doesn’t mean that Creation supports evolution, but moreover that evolution cannot even exist without creation.

The atheist (speaking generally) believes all of this comes from nothing (without a shred of logical, rational or scientific evidence). Atheists have no other choice but to accept evolution, because they (atheists, generally speaking) cannot accept the alternative, and remain atheists.

The agnostic (again, speaking generally) believes we cannot know what all of this comes from. But, when you follow all of the lines of evidence (logical, rational and scientific), we can know the fact that something comes from something (and not from nothing), life comes from life (not non-life). The evidence itself begs the question “why is there something, and not nothing? The very fact that we exist is evidence for creation!


Both assertions and philosophies are self-refuting.

Evolution doesn't attempt to answer anything about the origins of life itself--it attempts to explain the diversity and intelligence of life that we find today. You are right that it presupposes some kind of beginning to life (in your case creation). You are also right that creation doesn't require evolution to be a viable argument, simply because it isn't a viable argument in the first place.

View Post


Evolution cannot answer anything. Micro-evolution is nothing more than a cheapo rip-off of the word “adaptation”. And macro-evolution is nothing more than an unproven model. The only unviable option here is the atheists concept of evolution.

#7 Zyphka

Zyphka

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 16
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Michigan

Posted 12 May 2010 - 02:23 PM

Let me start by asking, by something and nothing are you referring to matter or life? The generation of life from non-life is very fuzzy and something we know little about, but the generation of matter from nothing defies almost everything we know about physics. Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, etc. generally wouldn't agree with the statement that matter can come from nothing, but may agree that life and come from non-life.

Actually, it does lend credence to the evidence for creation (whether you like it or not), and is opposed to steady state or everything coming from nothing models. The fact that we exist proves that we didn’t come from nothing. All the logical, rational and scientific evidence we have points to the fact that something comes from something (and not from nothing), life comes from life (not non-life). The evidence itself begs the question “why is there something, and not nothing? The very fact that we exist is evidence for creation!


You seem to be operating on the assumption that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. It is my understanding that science has very little idea as to whether or not this is true. We know nothing about what was here before. Our knowledge of physics suggests that there was likely something here, but we can't say what yet.

Evolution doesn’t debunk creation, if anything evolution supports the fact that “from nothing, nothing comes”. This doesn’t mean that Creation supports evolution, but moreover that evolution cannot even exist without creation.


No, evolution does not support that statement. Evolution supports the statement that life can come from life. It doesn't say anything about the origins of matter and life. Yes, it presupposes the existence of both, but doesn't support their "creation".

The atheist (speaking generally) believes all of this comes from nothing (without a shred of logical, rational or scientific evidence). Atheists have no other choice but to accept evolution, because they (atheists, generally speaking) cannot accept the alternative, and remain atheists.


Once again, I've got a problem with your "something coming from nothing statement". The laws of conservation of matter and energy suggest that everything has always been here, in some shape or form. To say that evidence suggests matter coming from nothing defies most of what we know about our universe.

The agnostic (again, speaking generally) believes we cannot know what all of this comes from. But, when you follow all of the lines of evidence (logical, rational and scientific), we can know the fact that something comes from something (and not from nothing), life comes from life (not non-life). The evidence itself begs the question “why is there something, and not nothing? The very fact that we exist is evidence for creation!


We don't know that all life comes from life. We know that life can come from life. Yes, we know that something comes from something. Therefore, there is something because either a) something was created, or b ) something has always been here. Evolution does not speak on either issue, nor does the Big Bang. I would be tempted to say that something has always been here, regardless of its form.

Evolution cannot answer anything. Micro-evolution is nothing more than a cheapo rip-off of the word “adaptation”. And macro-evolution is nothing more than an unproven model. The only unviable option here is the atheists concept of evolution.


I know that you warn against using microevolution to prove macroevolution (yes, I read the warning while signing up!), and I agree that it is fallacious to simply point out that small-scale changes prove the occurrence of large-scale changes, so I will not attempt that. As for your "unproven" point, I don't agree. Yes, it is "unproven" to the extent that we cannot observe large-scale changes in species. This means nothing. What matters is the overwhelming evidence that supports it, i.e.

Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence

Even ignoring this evidence, evolution is in no way unviable, and if you want to make that claim you'll have to show evidence against it, rather than lack of evidence for it.

#8 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 12 May 2010 - 05:57 PM

Let me start by asking, by something and nothing are you referring to matter or life? The generation of life from non-life is very fuzzy and something we know little about, but the generation of matter from nothing defies almost everything we know about physics. Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, etc. generally wouldn't agree with the statement that matter can come from nothing, but may agree that life and come from non-life.
You seem to be operating on the assumption that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything. It is my understanding that science has very little idea as to whether or not this is true. We know nothing about what was here before. Our knowledge of physics suggests that there was likely something here, but we can't say what yet.
No, evolution does not support that statement. Evolution supports the statement that life can come from life. It doesn't say anything about the origins of matter and life. Yes, it presupposes the existence of both, but doesn't support their "creation".
Once again, I've got a problem with your "something coming from nothing statement". The laws of conservation of matter and energy suggest that everything has always been here, in some shape or form. To say that evidence suggests matter coming from nothing defies most of what we know about our universe.
We don't know that all life comes from life. We know that life can come from life. Yes, we know that something comes from something. Therefore, there is something because either a) something was created, or b ) something has always been here. Evolution does not speak on either issue, nor does the Big Bang. I would be tempted to say that something has always been here, regardless of its form.
I know that you warn against using microevolution to prove macroevolution (yes, I read the warning while signing up!), and I agree that it is fallacious to simply point out that small-scale changes prove the occurrence of large-scale changes, so I will not attempt that. As for your "unproven" point, I don't agree. Yes, it is "unproven" to the extent that we cannot observe large-scale changes in species. This means nothing. What matters is the overwhelming evidence that supports it, i.e.

Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence

Even ignoring this evidence, evolution is in no way unviable, and if you want to make that claim you'll have to show evidence against it, rather than lack of evidence for it.

View Post


From your first link:

The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by scientists — and for good reason! Learn about the diverse and numerous lines of evidence that support the theory of evolution.


Majority view does not make new realities.

This succinct briefing describes 15 examples drawn from recent research that demonstrate evolutionary theory’s power to explain natural phenomena, along with some of their supporting lines of evidence--from whale fossils to the latest in genetics.
This resource is available from Nature magazine.


Interpretations without observable processes are only opinions. It is the same as saying: God exists because the Bible exist, but I cannot show Him to you to observe.

Darwin used the words "extreme imperfection" to describe the gappy nature of the fossil record - but is this really such a problem? This article delves into the topic of transitional fossils and explores what we have learned about them since Darwin's time.
This article appears at SpringerLink.


When a fossil is dug up, there is only 3 empirical things you can know about them:

1) What layer it was found in.
2) What age it dates to
3) What species it is in most cases.

The rest is interpreted word. Words are not empirical evidence unless the actual process of the claim can be observed. So to replace the process, evos use animation in hopes that no one realizes this. Problem is, animation is not real reality. It is made up reality. So if interpreted words (a claimed process) need to be animated instead observed. Then the words are not empirical evidence. They are one person's opinion of what happened. And regardless of how many people agree, it does not take away that the processes are still not being observed.

In lecture three of a four part series, evolutionary biologist David Kingsley examines the original objections to Darwin's theory and shows how modern evidence supports the theory.
This lecture is available from Howard Hughes' BioInteractive website.


Interpreted words are not observed processes. I can tell you a thousand different ways that God exists, are my words alone going to convince you? You see the fossils found are like the Bible in a since that it can be considered evidence. I can tell you that God exists because the Bible exists. Are you going to accept that as empirical evidence? Then why would you accept that because fossils exist evolution happens to the point claimed when you cannot see the claimed process? Because if you accept evolution for the same reason you reject God, then your acceptance of evolution is through prejudice only. Not because any one evidence is better than any other.

Fossils don't tell the story of evolution, man does.

This news brief, from May 2006, reviews what is likely to be the most important fossil find of the year: Tiktaalik helps us understand how our own ancestors crawled out of the water and began to walk on dry land.


Here again there are only three things that are empirical from a fossil, the rest are interpreted words which cannot be proven or tested. And animated from those words does not make the unobservable process empirical. Using flash animation I can animate certain things about creation bringing to life creation. But does that make the words of the Bible empirical? No more than it makes the interpreted words from a evolutionist empirical.

The Ensatina salamander has been extensively investigated because it is a ring species — a species that demonstrates how geography and the gradual accumulation of genetic differences factor into the process of speciation. Biologist Tom Devitt continues the more than 50 years of Ensatina research by applying new genetic techniques and asking new questions about this classic evolutionary example.


Speciation is the observable process besides mico-evolution. But even speciation is still within an animals kind. Like bird speciation. The bird that speciated was still a bird. Coming up with the ability not to be able to mate with it's own kind is not proof because it's still a bird. Which brings us back to all to the original problems.

Clair Patterson used radiometric dating to provide evidence that Earth (and the life on it) is ancient.
This article is located within History of Evolutionary Thought.


Age is not the issue. The Bible says that by His word, the heavens were of old. Which means God created with age already added to His creation. So as a YEC, I have no problem with age dating. it proves God's power over time and age.

Alfred Russel Wallace's studies of species ranges and Alfred Wegener's conception of continental drift provide compelling evidence that much of a species’ present distribution can be explained by its evolutionary history.
This article is located within History of Evolutionary Thought.


I have no problem with the Pangaea because I have found it explained in the Bible.

1) During creation the whole earth was covered with water which means all the land masses were one. During the creation all of the water had to go into one place for dry land to appear. in order for water to go underground, the crust has to expand. This is the first expansion which caused the super continent.

2) Before the flood a meteor strike knocked down the canopy. The sudden change in the barometric pressure which was higher from the weight of the canopy, lowered the boiling point of the water on the earth. this caused pressure to build up and the water to burst forth from the fountains of the deep. The water coming up started the plates moving back inward creating the mountains we now observe. It also made the planet smaller in dimension which means less water is required to cover it to the highest mountain.

3) The water on the earth now consists of water that was already here, plus water from the canopy, and a smaller diameter earth. Now this water, with it's extras has to re-enter under the crust. So the second expansion has to be bigger. And so the continents split to what we now observe.

Question: Out of all the claimed processes made about evolution, can you name 5 that are observable and testable?

#9 Zyphka

Zyphka

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 16
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Michigan

Posted 12 May 2010 - 07:47 PM

Question: Out of all the claimed processes made about evolution, can you name 5 that are observable and testable?


Are we talking about processes on a large scale or small? I'll assume large scale because small scale seems rather easy.

No, I cannot provide five observable and testable process of large scale evolution. In fact, I cannot even provide one.

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 May 2010 - 09:40 AM

Any posts that have been removed from this thread over the last two hours, are under review of administration for rules violations. A suggestions would be to review the forum rules prior to posting.

If you feel you're post has been incorrectly removed, contact admin. Venting on the open forum (i.e. complaining about and arguing about forum moderation) is a violation of the forum rules... And will not be tolerated.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users