Jump to content


Photo

If Evolution Is True...


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:57 PM

I like the way you try to assert yourself over others with comments like these. Have you been approaching others this way for 72 years? Really? :lol:

Think about it, Keith. It's based off of what we do know about life. Isn't that how science is supposed to work? :D

View Post

How about proving that my comment was unjustified by outlining what you know of the various anaerobic metabolisms and what chemicals would be toxic to them. Experience with oxygen-based life is not a real qualification.

For oxygen-based respiration, CO2 is toxic because CO2 has to be removed from hemoglobin before oxygen can by bound.

CO is particularly toxic because it binds more strongly to hemoglobin than does oxygen.

SO2 and SO3 are toxic because of their effect on the lungs, I think.

Real science is based on finding out the important and relevant facts, by literature search first, and then by experimentation if necessary and practical. There is no scientific merit in wild speculation without at least some supporting facts.
What for example, are the facts you know about life which support your position?

Are there any point from your 'toxin' post which you want to discuss further?

#62 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 09:07 PM

There is no scientific merit in wild speculation without at least some supporting facts.

View Post

Tell that to Darwin.

What for example, are the facts you know about life which support your position?

View Post

The Law of Biogenesis.

#63 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 11 July 2009 - 01:52 AM

My impression of school text books is that they are always many years out of date, and also very watered down to keep the explanations simple.


Simple implies stupidity. So how far out of date would you say the average text book is anyway? 50-100 years? Do you think they have caught up to the space shuttle yet? Do you think Lucy has be printed up yet?

Also, I think the creationist crusade against evolution has been sufficiently successful that no school textbook is going to touch the ape - human differences for fear of being banned in Texas and/or California.


Two states out of 50? Seems to me evolution has the upper hand. But I guess any ground is a threat where God is concerned.

How about posting your entire presentation to your mens group here?
Have you checked and verified the numbers I suggested?

View Post


Because of the small scale groups, I doubt it will be recorded. But once it gets done, they will probably want it done before the whole church. And they have professional TV cameras in there. I'll just have to wait and see what happens. It's all talk right now.

#64 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 July 2009 - 03:58 AM

Simple implies stupidity.

View Post


No, simplicity implies a learning path. There's no point trying to teach people algebraic formulas before they can do basic multiplication. Similar comparisons can be drawn in any field.

Regards,

Arch.

#65 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 11 July 2009 - 07:54 PM

No, simplicity implies a learning path. There's no point trying to teach people algebraic formulas before they can do basic multiplication. Similar comparisons can be drawn in any field.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Is doing percentages in college? I leanred that in Jr. highschool.

Also, would you say that sr. highschool needs simple math, and therefore should not have complex percentages about DNA?

In fact, what kind of math do you think they teach in Sr. highschool?

#66 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 11 July 2009 - 08:39 PM

'Toxin' is not one of life's absolutes.
Oxygen is toxic to many anaerobic organisms, and some of them actually prefer mixtures of gases such as SO2, H2S, CO2 etc which we would find very toxic.

If abiogenesis is possible, then the first living organisms would have formed in an atmosphere with little or no free oxygen, but with SO2, H2S, CO2 and perhaps CO all present.  These gases would not be toxic to the organisms which evolved under those conditions.

View Post


Do you have any experimental evidence to support your position?Most anaerobic bacteria have genes for oxygen as well.Gene expression through adaption is predicted by Creationists.Can you demonstrate it occuring without loss of genetic information or horizontal gene transfer.

We would need to see these genes not present in the parent colony and then see them aquired through random mutation.

Facultatively anaerobic bacteria are able to adapt to many different growth conditions. Their capability to change their metabolism optimally is often ensured by FNR-like proteins. The FNR protein ofEscherichia coli functions as the main regulator during the aerobic-to-anaerobic switch. Low oxygen tensions activate this protein which is expressed constitutively and is inactive under aerobic conditions. The active form is dimeric and contains a [4Fe−4S]2+ cluster. The direct dissociation of the cluster to the [2Fe−2S]2+ cluster by the effect of oxygen leads to destabilization of the FNR dimer and to loss of its activity. The active FNR induces the expression of many anaerobic genes; the set comprises over 100 of controlled genes. Many other bacteria contain one or more FNR analogues. All these proteins form the FNR family of regulatory proteins. Properties of these proteins are very distinct, sometimes even among representatives of different strains of the same bacterial species. FNR-like proteins together with other regulators (e.g., two-component system ArcBA, nitrate-sensing system NarXL,etc.) control a complicated network of modulons that is characteristic for every species or even strain and enables fine tuning of gene expression.


http://www.springerl...17W435U0742.pdf

#67 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 July 2009 - 12:17 AM

Is doing percentages in college? I leanred that in Jr. highschool.

Also, would you say that sr. highschool needs simple math, and therefore should not have complex percentages about DNA?

In fact, what kind of math do you think they teach in Sr. highschool?

View Post


I was using algebra as a comparison. We're talking about ToE, not what maths to teach in high schools.

Regards,

Arch.

#68 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 12 July 2009 - 03:02 AM

I was using algebra as a comparison. We're talking about ToE, not what maths to teach in high schools.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Ah, you get it, you are just equivocating.

#69 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2009 - 03:37 PM

In reply to ;-

There is no scientific merit in wild speculation without at least some supporting facts.

all Adam has to offer:-

Tell that to Darwin.


I think Darwin typically has more supporting facts on each page than in this entire website, since most of the 'facts' in the videos seem to be misleading.

On why abiogenesis is not possible:-

The Law of Biogenesis.

View Post

If you think Pasteur's experiments have established a universal law then you have not
investigated the matter very deeply.
Oxygen was present in all Pasteur's experiments, and there was no energy source to provide a way to drive reaction away from chemical equilibrium after the broth cooled.

#70 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2009 - 03:58 PM

Two states out of 50? Seems to me evolution has the upper hand. But I guess any ground is a threat where God is concerned.

"Public school textbooks are big business in Texas. Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks behind California. Texas also employs an extensive review process which involves input from the public. Independent school districts in the state of Texas can purchase whatever textbooks they prefer. But if they want state assistance in the purchase of textbooks, they'd better pick those texts that are recommended by the State Board of Education.

Publishers know that whatever books Texas approves, other states will adopt as well. Therefore the decisions by the Texas State Board of Education regarding textbooks influence what many students across the country will be reading over the next few years. Publishers pay very close attention to what goes on in Texas.
"
http://www.probe.org...y_Textbooks.htm

#71 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 July 2009 - 04:10 PM

In reply to:-

'Toxin' is not one of life's absolutes.
Oxygen is toxic to many anaerobic organisms, and some of them actually prefer mixtures of gases such as SO2, H2S, CO2 etc which we would find very toxic.

If abiogenesis is possible, then the first living organisms would have formed in an atmosphere with little or no free oxygen, but with SO2, H2S, CO2 and perhaps CO all present.  These gases would not be toxic to the organisms which evolved under those conditions.


Do you have any experimental evidence to support your position?Most anaerobic bacteria have genes for oxygen as well.Gene expression through adaption is predicted by Creationists.Can you demonstrate it occuring without loss of genetic information or horizontal gene transfer.

We would need to see these genes not present in the parent colony and then see them aquired through random mutation.

View Post

Some organisms, like baker's yeast, are facultative anaerobes and can live either with or without oxygen. This is not true for those strict anaerobic species which have very different metabolisms.

Since I am claiming, (and have evidence to support) that these 'exotic' species already exist, the rest of your post is irrelevant.
However, if abiogenesis is eventually achieved, I have no doubt that creationists will have predicted it.

#72 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 July 2009 - 06:01 PM

Ah, you get it, you are just equivocating.

View Post


There is a difference between a comparison and equivocating ikester. If you can't see the difference then never to mind. Perhaps the point will be clearer if we return to your original objection, which was that 99.8% could be seen as deceptive because that still accounts for ~6million differences.

Have you looked at the other side of that equation? If there are 6 million differences, then there are approximately 2.4 billion similarities. Suddenly that large number of differences looks very small in comparison. To be honest, I think just showing the numbers could be vastly more deceptive than the percentages, especially when you're only advertising one side of the equation.

Regards,

Arch.

#73 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 July 2009 - 09:10 PM

If you think Pasteur's experiments have established a universal law then you have not investigated the matter very deeply.

View Post

Please show all of us the demonstration that overturns it? Consider what is revealed when someone says that their ideas are scientific when they have no scientific data to back it up.

#74 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 13 July 2009 - 12:00 AM

"Public school textbooks are big business in Texas. Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks behind California. Texas also employs an extensive review process which involves input from the public. Independent school districts in the state of Texas can purchase whatever textbooks they prefer. But if they want state assistance in the purchase of textbooks, they'd better pick those texts that are recommended by the State Board of Education.

Publishers know that whatever books Texas approves, other states will adopt as well. Therefore the decisions by the Texas State Board of Education regarding textbooks influence what many students across the country will be reading over the next few years. Publishers pay very close attention to what goes on in Texas.
"
http://www.probe.org...y_Textbooks.htm

View Post


Should it be the democratic freedom of the people, or the evolutionist way? In this case majority view is not working in the evolutionists favor like everything else does. Some pople just cannot stand competition when total control is what they want.

#75 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 13 July 2009 - 12:01 AM

There is a difference between a comparison and equivocating ikester. If you can't see the difference then never to mind. Perhaps the point will be clearer if we return to your original objection, which was that 99.8% could be seen as deceptive because that still accounts for ~6million differences.

Have you looked at the other side of that equation? If there are 6 million differences, then there are approximately 2.4 billion similarities. Suddenly that large number of differences looks very small in comparison. To be honest, I think just showing the numbers could be vastly more deceptive than the percentages, especially when you're only advertising one side of the equation.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


So that justifies hiding the real number from the masses?

#76 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2009 - 07:53 PM

Should it be the democratic freedom of the people, or the evolutionist way? In this case majority view is not working in the evolutionists favor like everything else does. Some pople just cannot stand competition when total control is what they want.

View Post

Scientific questions are not decided by majority vote or even by public debate and the applause level for the different participants. Scientists are the best qualified to decide what should be taught in science class.

The latest Pew poll figures:-
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public.

Views on evolution vary substantially within the general public, particularly by religion and attendance at religious services. A majority (57%) of white evangelical Protestants hold the view that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Most Catholics and white mainline Protestants say humans have evolved, though they are divided about whether this is a result of natural processes or whether evolution was guided by a supreme being. Among the religiously unaffiliated, by contrast, 60% say humans have evolved due to natural processes.
"
From chapter 5 of this report:-
http://people-press....rt/?pageid=1550

#77 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2009 - 08:55 PM

So that justifies hiding the real number from the masses?

View Post


Who's hiding it ikester? You found it didn't you? Can't be too well hidden ;)

We often use percentages when numbers get extremely large. I think you would struggle to think up 6million differences between apes and humans. Even more unlikely do I think you could come up with 24million similarities. We use percentages when it become difficult to wrap ones head around large values. There is no conspiracy, there is nothing hidden. Percentages are used all the time, in every single field, and not just science. Why is it you get a bee in your bonnet only when it involves evolution? Shouldn't you be crusading against every percentage that's used? After all, every single percentage hides the actual figures. I think to find the answers to your questions all you need to do is look internally.

Regards,

Arch.

#78 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 23 April 2011 - 01:47 PM

When I say that absolutes exist only in math I'm doing so by implying that equations and formulas in math alone are absolute, but when used in correlation with an observation of the real world, math can only be used to determine truth about the observation to a certain degree of certainty.

View Post


Is that absolutely true? Because if it is, then either your observation on math is incorrect, or your observation on the real world is incorrect!

What you have promulgated as a fact above, is in fact "self defeating".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users