Jump to content


Photo

Micro & Macroevolution


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#121 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 27 May 2010 - 07:24 PM

It seems like microevolution is generally accepted amongst creationists, and I’d like to explore exactly what this term encompasses.

The definitions I’m familiar with are as follows: microevolution is a change below the species level, macroevolution is above the species level (ie. the formation of a new species).

This thread has gotten big; here is the answer to your question from a protestant, biblical prespective. Instead of a polygenetic tree for me, I needed to start thinking of it differently... Gnight
Here is how we categorize organisms based on Gen. 1.
Day 3:
seed-bearing plant
trees that grow seed-bearing fruit
*both same kind
Day 5:
waters fish and other life.
skies filled birds.
Day 6
Earth produce: livestock,
small animals that scurry along the ground
and wild animals.
Humans – male, female

#122 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2010 - 01:02 AM

Eocene, what does your rampage about going to Mars have to do with micro and macroevolution?

#123 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 28 May 2010 - 08:24 PM

Apologies. But you keep warping my words and claiming that evolution is actively deciding what to do, so I bring it up again.

And no I don’t have any problem with people who disagree with me and nor do I think that they are not as smart as me. That point has nothing to do with what I said.

The point is, I have repeated that comment many times and I have yet to get a reply explaining either why it’s wrong or how it indicates a conscious design. All I get is a diversion or an equivocation. If you disagree with it, that's fine - but I would prefer if you gave a reason why.

View Post


No apology needed.

I have yet to see "any" evolutionist prove that everything forms through random chance. The math of odds don't even support this. So do we ignore the math to prove evolution? If the math does not even support it, then what does that tell you?

When you ignore the problems, as you are constantly doing, you are implying absolutes and also show that the problems of evolution cannot be addressed. Otherwise you would address them instead of blaming everyone else when your science cannot help you.

Ignoring problems to make everything conform to what you want to be true is not science. It's religion because it requires faith. Religion says you need faith, so faith is required. Science does not. Science says you need empirical evidence. I have yet to see "any" empirical evidence that proves random chance forms everything. If you have it, list it and we will test it according to the definition of what empirical means.

So make your list, if you have one.

#124 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 28 May 2010 - 08:42 PM

(From the other thread ;))
No – they don’t. And there is a very good explanation for the apparent design. It’s called evolution. The evolutionists can explain this via natural selection which is not a conscious force, just like gravity isn't - yet that creates apparent order via orbits etc due to mass curving spacetime.
I'm pretty sure I explained it a bit better in the above post, so refer to that :o
Life adapts to its environment via mutations, usually at the micro level. These mutations are random and are not driven via any purposeful intent or even awareness. These slight changes are variations in genetic material usually are neutral - neither advantageous nor deleterious. However, sometimes they prove to be beneficial as it helps the organism compete in some way. And more often than the advantageous ones, they prove to be detrimental. These inadvertently get "screened" or "sieved" (note parentheses) out via natural selection, as they prove to be hazardous to the creature and often result in its death before progeny.

When I said "deliberate" - I was referring to creationists saying that evolution suggests that mutations are purpose driven and intentional. That is not what evolution subscribes to.
This seems to be a bit of a repetition so perhaps you should only address my above post (I was only trying to relocate the last discussion since it's so similar to the above).

View Post


No life does not always adapt to it's environment. Plankton changes it's environment to survive by making clouds.

http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

In this situation, what is the plankton adapting to? And why would it be called adapting when the plankton are not changing?

#125 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 28 May 2010 - 09:57 PM

This thread has gotten big; here is the answer to your question from a protestant, biblical prespective.  Instead of a polygenetic tree for me, I needed to start thinking of it differently...  Gnight


lol sleep sounds good to me right now, but first a few posts.


Here is how we categorize organisms based on Gen. 1.
Day 3:
seed-bearing plant
trees that grow seed-bearing fruit
*both same kind


You might want to review how many kinds were created this day. But when were non-seed baring plants created?

Day 5:
waters fish and other life.
skies filled birds.
Day 6
Earth produce: livestock,
small animals that scurry along the ground
and wild animals.
Humans – male, female

View Post


Ah I really don't have anything to say about this. I think we all know the route a conversation on kinds will take us, and there is no need to do that in this thread.

#126 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:21 AM

No – they don’t. And there is a very good explanation for the apparent design.

View Post

I know, it’s called design; the beginning to all we see. Before any contingent being can replicate and adapt, it first must come into being. Still waiting for that explanation.

It’s called evolution.

View Post

Really, then from what did evolution evolve? Still waiting for that explanation.


The evolutionists can explain this via natural selection which is not a conscious force, just like gravity isn't - yet that creates apparent order via orbits etc due to mass curving spacetime.

View Post


You’re attempting to explain a life force by using a non-life force. Gravity is not a living force capable of making decisions and choices as you and I are, it is an effect caused by other forces, and governed by immutable laws. It has nothing to do with so-called “natural selection” any more than a rock rolling down a hill. (Yes, I know, evolutionists have attempted to use this argument as well… Unsuccessfully I might add). Gravity doesn’t evolve, it either is or isn’t dependant upon the forces governing its existence in any given situation.

Living beings live or die dependant upon the surrounding conditions, AND their ability to adapt. A living being is substantive. You can see, touch, smell, hear, taste etc… (not in any specific order or combination) a living being. You cannot do so with a non-living force like gravity, you can only see its effects. Living beings can make decisions and/or react. Gravity cannot, gravity is merely at the whim of other non-living forces, which in-turn are at the whim of other non-living forces.

I'm pretty sure I explained it a bit better in the above post, so refer to that ;)

View Post

The real explanation has yet to be adduced (by you or any other evolutionist).

#127 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:23 AM

Life adapts to its environment via mutations, usually at the micro level.

View Post

That is incorrect as well. We adapt to our environments everyday. And we make decisions to enhance our survival.

These mutations are random and are not driven via any purposeful intent or even awareness.

View Post

Again, incorrect; we make many choices (non-random) that enhance our survival.

These slight changes are variations in genetic material usually are neutral - neither advantageous nor deleterious. However, sometimes they prove to be beneficial as it helps the organism compete in some way. And more often than the advantageous ones, they prove to be detrimental. These inadvertently get "screened" or "sieved" (note parentheses) out via natural selection, as they prove to be hazardous to the creature and often result in its death before progeny.

View Post

The entire statement above is hypothetical. And, if it’s your belief system, that’s fine. You have every right to it.


When I said "deliberate" - I was referring to creationists saying that evolution suggests that mutations are purpose driven and intentional. That is not what evolution subscribes to.

View Post

Again, it matters not how you were referencing the word deliberate, as I was referencing the scientific periodicals, white papers, abstracts and lay-peoples magazines (Nat-Geo, Discovery etc...) that promulgate this “deliberateness” of “Evolution”, “Nature”, and “Natural Selection”, and then attempt to deny it in the same breath.


This seems to be a bit of a repetition so perhaps you should only address my above post (I was only trying to relocate the last discussion since it's so similar to the above).

View Post

I believe I did.

#128 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2010 - 11:37 AM

I replied to that here, Ron, could you do the same? In order to not have it scattered throughout unrelated threads.

Thanks B)

#129 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 29 May 2010 - 02:07 PM

lol sleep sounds good to me right now, but first a few posts.
You might want to review how many kinds were created this day.  But when were non-seed baring plants created?
Ah I really don't have anything to say about this.  I think we all know the route a conversation on kinds will take us, and there is no need to do that in this thread.

View Post

Perhaps non-seed bearing plants came about after the fall --some plants loosing their ability to bear seeds, along with weeds. Your right, I accidentiily left off vegetation in day 3, such as grass. You can view Gen. 1 for yourself. You also might want to study baraminology - I don't think neo-Darwinian Evolution can account for plant seeds...

#130 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 May 2010 - 02:34 AM

That is incorrect as well. We adapt to our environments everyday. And we make decisions to enhance our survival.
Again, incorrect; we make many choices (non-random) that enhance our survival.
The entire statement above is hypothetical. And, if it’s your belief system, that’s fine. You have every right to it.



Good answer and great observation Ron. This dogma gets so engrained and entrenched into some evolutionist's psyche that many become so shackled by this life is only driven by "Random Mutations" and "Unspecified Natural Magic" doctrine, that everyday common sense get's tossed out the window. It's not just human's that make common everyday decisions using their intelligence, but all life to the extent it has consciousness and a measure of intelligence and programmed instinct makes choices and decisions to the extant that various factors influence it's life, be that choice in foods, shelter, climate, etc. There's a scripture at

Psalm 145:16 (New International Version)

16 "You open your hand
and satisfy the desires of every living thing."




Interestingly, every living thing be it a microbe, bacteria, tree, bush, fish, bird, animal, reptile, or human being has specific desires and needs. Specific foods it prefers, shelter/housing, climatic environment, ecosystem habitat, etc and makes conscious decisions towards satisfying those desires through conscious choice making.


Again, it matters not how you were referencing the word deliberate, as I was referencing the scientific periodicals, white papers, abstracts and lay-peoples magazines (Nat-Geo, Discovery etc...) that promulgate this “deliberateness” of “Evolution”, “Nature”, and “Natural Selection”, and then attempt to deny it in the same breath.

View Post



Oooooooooooooooo <_< , you're gonna pay for that one. B)

#131 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 30 May 2010 - 07:34 AM

I replied to that here, Ron, could you do the same? In order to not have it scattered throughout unrelated threads.

Thanks B)

View Post


Are you going to reply to what I said here:

No apology needed.

I have yet to see "any" evolutionist prove that everything forms through random chance. The math of odds don't even support this. So do we ignore the math to prove evolution? If the math does not even support it, then what does that tell you?

When you ignore the problems, as you are constantly doing, you are implying absolutes and also show that the problems of evolution cannot be addressed. Otherwise you would address them instead of blaming everyone else when your science cannot help you.

Ignoring problems to make everything conform to what you want to be true is not science. It's religion because it requires faith. Religion says you need faith, so faith is required. Science does not. Science says you need empirical evidence. I have yet to see "any" empirical evidence that proves random chance forms everything. If you have it, list it and we will test it according to the definition of what empirical means.

So make your list, if you have one.


And here?

No life does not always adapt to it's environment. Plankton changes it's environment to survive by making clouds.

http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

In this situation, what is the plankton adapting to? And why would it be called adapting when the plankton are not changing?


With all due respect....

You can ignore the problems of evolution all you want, it does not make new realities or new truth. But it does show that the problems that do exist cannot be addressed. And all the posturing in the world is not going to change that. So when you came in here with an know it all attitude, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Because skipping questions you don't like is starting to make you look like all smoke and mirrors on the smugness that you project with every post.

#132 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 May 2010 - 09:51 AM

Sorry for the delay ikester - I'm involved in a number of discussions here (to my regret), and they're often scattered between other users discussions - so it get's confusing. I'm sure you understand it too - for example, there are a few posts that I have responded to you in which I have yet to get a reply. No pressure - just pointing it out B)

I have yet to see "any" evolutionist prove that everything forms through random chance. The math of odds don't even support this. So do we ignore the math to prove evolution? If the math does not even support it, then what does that tell you?


Randomness is not what evolution is solely based on. The only thing random about it is the mutations - that's what supplies natural selection with the variety and diversity we see today. There is no "correct" way for a species to go and there is no guarantee that a particular beneficial mutation (in accordance with the environment) will occur - if it does, it gets passed on - if it doesn't, the species may simply not go in that particular direction and ends up going in different one, or else it simply isn't able to compete as well and dies out.

Evolution does not say that molecules jumble together and somehow arranges into a human being, and that seems to be what you're implying. If that was what evolution predicted - I doubt anyone would support it.

The most important part of evolution is natural selection - it is a nonrandom, unconscious and inadvertent filtration system - separating the deleterious mutations from the beneficial ones simply via survival and death. It is not an active or conscious process - it is just the word we give to explain observed phenomena - eg, a culture of bacteria becoming immune to a certain type of anitibiotics. The bacteria that are not immune die because of the antibiotics, and a select few (if none generated it, they all would die. Because of bacteria being asexual - you only need one with the resistance to be able to repopulate) that had a mutation that offered them an advantage, ie resistance, survived and were able to proliferate until the entire culture was now resistant to the antibiotics.

That is why natural selection is nonrandom.

When you ignore the problems, as you are constantly doing, you are implying absolutes and also show that the problems of evolution cannot be addressed. Otherwise you would address them instead of blaming everyone else when your science cannot help you.


What problems am I ignoring? Other than the "maths" problem you said above - because that is not an actual problem, as I explained above. Evolution works via tiny gradual steps and accumulative change. There are no drastic reconfigurations that would require huge improbabilities.

Ignoring problems to make everything conform to what you want to be true is not science. It's religion because it requires faith. Religion says you need faith, so faith is required. Science does not.  Science says you need empirical evidence. I have yet to see "any" empirical evidence that proves random chance forms everything. If you have it, list it and we will test it according to the definition of what empirical means.


Randomness does not form everything. Random mutations is what supplies the variety - it is not the only part of evolution. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a good "empirical" example of random mutations generating a beneficial trait which later spreads throughout the population via natural selection (those that didn't have it, died, those that did, survived).

No life does not always adapt to it's environment. Plankton changes it's environment to survive by making clouds.
http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html
In this situation, what is the plankton adapting to? And why would it be called adapting when the plankton are not changing?


The plankton adapted to its environment to be able to make clouds. That "trait" is a result of adaptation. To quote the article you gave me:
"The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants."

That proves that the plankton were under selection pressures to adopt a defensive mechanism. That is not to say that they decided to evolve that trait - it was obviously inadvertent - a random mutation must have occured that bettered the planktons method of defense in some small way and this increased its survival and reproduction chances. Via accumulative change and time, the compound used could have formed.

However - I do agree with your first statement ("life does not always adapt to it's environment"), but not in the way you meant it. Adaptation isn't guaranteed and the life that doesn't adapt dies, unsurprisingly.

You can ignore the problems of evolution all you want, it does not make new realities or new truth. But it does show that the problems that do exist cannot be addressed. And all the posturing in the world is not going to change that. So when you came in here with an know it all attitude, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Because skipping questions you don't like is starting to make you look like all smoke and mirrors on the smugness that you project with every post.


I don't ignore the problems. I also don't skip questions. I have answered everything that was asked of me. The only post that I have yet to reply to is one by Eocene and I probably won't have the time to reply again today. However, I will obviously not ignore it and will address it as soon as possible, as I intended to.

Also, I didn't realise my posts appeared smug. Could you point out an example?

#133 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 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 30 May 2010 - 11:10 AM

Sorry for the delay ikester - I'm involved in a number of discussions here (to my regret), and they're often scattered between other users discussions - so it get's confusing. I'm sure you understand it too - for example, there are a few posts that I have responded to you in which I have yet to get a reply. No pressure - just pointing it out B)
Randomness is not what evolution is solely based on. The only thing random about it is the mutations - that's what supplies natural selection with the variety and diversity we see today. There is no "correct" way for a species to go and there is no guarantee that a particular beneficial mutation (in accordance with the environment) will occur - if it does, it gets passed on - if it doesn't, the species  may simply not go in that particular direction and ends up going in different one, or else it simply isn't able to compete as well and dies out.

Evolution does not say that molecules jumble together and somehow arranges into a human being, and that seems to be what you're implying. If that was what evolution predicted - I doubt anyone would support it.

The most important part of evolution is natural selection - it is a nonrandom, unconscious and inadvertent filtration system - separating the deleterious mutations from the beneficial ones simply via survival and death. It is not an active or conscious process - it is just the word we give to explain observed phenomena - eg, a culture of bacteria becoming immune to a certain type of anitibiotics. The bacteria that are not immune die because of the antibiotics, and a select few (if none generated it, they all would die. Because of bacteria being asexual - you only need one with the resistance to be able to repopulate) that had a mutation that offered them an advantage, ie resistance, survived and were able to proliferate until the entire culture was now resistant to the antibiotics.

That is why natural selection is nonrandom.

View Post

Rathie,

Most people who have studied natural selection do not disagree with it. What you are not understanding is the nature of random mutation, and WHY math is against it being sufficient for the task of macro evolution.

The main challenge is that you can not change anything major, unless you also change the regulatory processes of the genome. This requires new encoding not only for the new phenotype proteins, but new activator and repressor proteins, not to mention new enzymes--at the same time! These must somehow randomly, without knowledge or guidance, be encoded so that the proteins happen to correspond with signal molecules , sometimes from the outside environment. These bind with the activators or repressors, changing their shape so that they bind or unbind from the DNA (they turn genes on and off according to need). In some instances these signal molecules may be nutrients to turn on the very genes that encode enzymes that digests the nutrients, such as Lac1.

So in order that natural selection does not 'delete' an unneeded activator or repressor, it all has to fit together simultaneously. Along with the fact that it all has to correspond to another allele which codes for another enzyme which is responsible to produce some other phenotypical feature. All of this would have been required in the germ line cells, before natural selection would select it.

The idea of random mutation is like if you are trying to change a an automobile pump into another useful machine with no specs. You have 4 buckets. You have a bucket of bolts of different sizes. Metal plates of different sizes. O rings of different sizes, and a bucket of screws of different sizes. You have a pump in front of you and you must now with your four buckets of parts, change this pump into something else that works within the automobile, so that the entire system still works. Now you begin to randomly pull out screws, plates, o rings, and bolts. After each cycle of parts you fit on the pump, you must start the engine. If the engine does not start, this is the equivalent of biological fatality, or at least a deleterious mutation that is passed into at least a part of the population. NATURAL SELECTION WILL WORK AGAINST THIS RANDOMNESS NOT FOR IT.

Now in case you want to use a population to decrease the odds against this scenario. Let's give you one million autaomobiles, one million pumps, and 4 million buckets of parts. We will let the autos which start reproduce themselves. ANd the autos that do not start will be destroyed. Do you think that one person out of a million will be able to change a pump into another working machine that will change the engine into something else. Do you think at each random pull out the bucket you someone will eventually accomplish that task?

The problem is even if a population does one step of the process once to keep the autos running with each start without messing up the pumps--until you get something like an electronic ignition. It is the utter impossibility of finding a pahway to do such that is the uncrossable canyon.

The idea of random mutation asks us to leave our brains in park, and just trust the better sense of the guys in the white coats.

#134 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 30 May 2010 - 11:51 AM

Rathie,

Most people who have studied natural selection do not disagree with it. What you are not understanding is the nature of random mutation, and WHY math is against it being sufficient for the task of macro evolution.

The main challenge is that you can not change anything major, unless you also change the regulatory processes of the genome.  This requires new encoding not only for the new proteins, but new activator and repressor proteins--at the same time!  These must somehow randomly, without knowledge or guidance, be encoded so that the proteins happen to correspond with signal molecules , sometimes from the outside environment.  These bind with the activators or repressors, changing their shape so that they bind or unbind from the DNA (they turn genes on and off according to need).  In some instances these signal molecules may be nutrients to turn on the very genes that encode enzymes that digests the nutrients, such as Lac1.

So in order that natural selection does not 'delete' an unneeded activator or repressor, it all has to fit together simultaneously.  Along with the fact that it all has to correspond to another allele which codes for another enzyme which is responsible to produce some other phenotypical feature. All of this would have been required in the germ line cells, before natural selection would select it.

The idea of random mutation is like if you are trying to change a an automobile pump into another useful machine with no specs.  You have 4 buckets.  You have a bucket of bolts of different sizes. Metal plates of different sizes.  O rings of different sizes, and a bucket of screws of different sizes.  You have a pump in front of you and you must now with your four buckets of parts, change this pump into something else that works within the automobile, so that the entire system still works.  Now you begin to randomly pull out screws, plates, o rings, and bolts.  After each cycle of parts you fit on the pump, you must start the engine.  If the engine does not start, this is the equivalent of biological fatality, or at least a deleterious mutation that is passed into at least a part of the population.  NATURAL SELECTION WILL WORK AGAINST THIS RANDOMNESS NOT FOR IT.

Now in case you want to use a population to decrease the odds against this scenario.  Let's give you one million autaomobiles, one million pumps, and 4 million buckets of parts.  Do you think that one person out of a million will be able to change a pump into another working machine that will change the engine into something else.  Do you think at each random pull out the bucket you someone will eventually accomplish that task?

The problem is even if a population does one step of the process once to keep the auto running--let's even give the auto the ability to reproduce this feature, and we will destroy every other unrunning ahtomobile, and the random pull that did not produce anything.

Now you have to do this two thousand times to produce one main change.  Like a fuel pump into an electronic ignition.

The idea of random mutation asks us to leave our brains in park, and just trust the better sense of the guys in the white coats.

View Post


People see only what they want to see when they choose to have total faith in their belief. Rathie has the inability to think outside the evolution box. This is why he posts what is discussed here on another forum and blog. This whole thing is just entertainment to him. Which proves he is not looking for any more truth, he already has 100% total faith that evolution is the only truth out there. And he is here to sharpen his skills on evangelism for evolution.

http://www.atheistfo...149.html#503954
http://raithie.blogspot.com/

Science is about pondering all things. Rathie only ponders one thing, and that is how everything "must" conform to evolution. Conformity is not science.

#135 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 May 2010 - 01:31 PM

People see only what they want to see when they choose to have total faith in their belief. Rathie has the inability to think outside the evolution box. This is why he posts what is discussed here on another forum and blog. This whole thing is just entertainment to him. Which proves he is not looking for any more truth, he already has 100% total faith that evolution is the only truth out there. And he is here to sharpen his skills on evangelism for evolution.

http://www.atheistfo...149.html#503954
http://raithie.blogspot.com/

Science is about pondering all things. Rathie only ponders one thing, and that is how everything "must" conform to evolution. Conformity is not science.

View Post



Ah, the old Miller-Urey experiment (facade). Atheistic evolutionists usually drag this out when they cannot come up with a rebuttal to the origins question. Not only did it fail, but, had it even worked, it would have only proven design (oops). But then it leaves them in another conundrum: where did the elements come from in the first place?

So, now they have to posit a reasonable explanation for not only the origins of the amino acids, but also the water, UV and lightning, AND the origins of the building blocks for them as well. Sorry guys, no "natural explanation there.

Further, Raithie complained that he "recently got attacked by creationists". But as we examine the statements of the other atheists at the site, we’ll soon discover blatant attacks and subtle attacks, and out-and-out illogical attacks:

He's arguing from ignorance, and using that ignorance to advance his agenda.

Here, Joseph is arguing from ignorance to complain about someone else arguing from ignorance.

“That creationist is an idiot.” And “Creationists are 'masters' at deception and missing the point.”

Hmmmm, nuff said here. And Raithie said he was attacked? I didn’t see in that discussion where Raithie complained about those folks attacking creationists.

The point of the experiment is that the formation of amino acids are possible through natural means.

As you notice, this argument is self refuting because at its very premise, “natural means” the premise fails because it was actually caused in a laboratory, by a person, by design. No “natural means” what-so-ever.

#136 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 May 2010 - 01:35 PM

Yes, that is quite the forum to go to and claim you are being attacked. It does provide insight into the psyche of atheistic mentality. And, in some cases, they show a pure hatred for Christians, Creationists, Jews and Muslims alike.

#137 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 30 May 2010 - 06:14 PM

Yes, that is quite the forum to go to and claim you are being attacked. It does provide insight into the psyche of atheistic mentality. And, in some cases, they show a pure hatred for Christians, Creationists, Jews and Muslims alike.

View Post


The only time I really see a evolutionist, like Rathie, play the victim is when at the forum they complain about, they are losing just about every debate. So to save face they go to another forum or blog and whine about how unfair and bias we are. When they are the ones who wrote the book on it.

#138 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 30 May 2010 - 06:31 PM

The only time I really see a evolutionist, like Rathie, play the victim is when at the forum they complain about, they are losing just about every debate. So to save face they go to another forum or blog and whine about how unfair and bias we are. When they are the ones who wrote the book on it.

View Post



To be fair, it happens a lot on evolution forums when creationists come in and lose a debate.

I think you're mistaking a behavior that you say evolutionists "wrote the book on" with human nature.

#139 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 30 May 2010 - 07:55 PM

I think you're mistaking a behavior that you say evolutionists "wrote the book on" with human nature.


Your confusing the sinful nature with human nature. Most people prefer evolution , even though logic and empirical testing contradict it, simply so they can enjoy the false self-exaltation of calling other people idiots. In the end, the fool is the one who could have done right but died because he refused.

#140 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 12:44 AM

Ah, the old  Miller-Urey experiment (facade). Atheistic evolutionists usually drag this out when they cannot come up with a rebuttal to the origins question. Not only did it fail, but, had it even worked, it would have only proven design (oops). But then it leaves them in another conundrum: where did the elements come from in the first place?

So, now they have to posit a reasonable explanation for not only the origins of the amino acids, but also the water, UV and lightning, AND the origins of the building blocks for them as well. Sorry guys, no "natural explanation there. 

Further, Raithie complained that he "recently got attacked by creationists". But as  we examine the statements of the other atheists at the site, we’ll soon discover blatant attacks and subtle attacks, and out-and-out illogical attacks:
Hmmmm, nuff said here. And Raithie said he was attacked? I didn’t see in that discussion where Raithie complained about those folks attacking creationists.

The point of the experiment is that the formation of amino acids are possible through natural means.

As you notice, this argument is self refuting because at its very premise, “natural means” the premise fails because it was actually caused in a laboratory, by a person, by design. No “natural means” what-so-ever.

View Post



There are several things that are never talked about with regards the Miller experiment. First of all, I apparently was being complained against because I made up the part about the Trap that Miller rigged. Well, that's what he did, but the demand was that I prove my statement. The assumption being that I must have dug it up over on some creationist site. I didn't. I've known about the Miller-Urey experiments long before the internet, however someone with apparently limited experience of youth wouldn't get that. Therefore it must be a conspiracy.

Does anybody have any sense that Miller just didn't do one experiment , but many until he concluded that he had to build a trap to rescue the those precious amino acids from the spark ?????? But instead of acknowledging that over there, they instead create an on the spot fable that he built the trap to simulate amino acids hiding under rocks, falling into oceans to escape, etc, etc, etc for no other reason than to get away from more electrical sparks, UV cosmic rays, etc. False, that is not why he built it, this story was invented later as a cover up when criticism exposed that he rigged the experiment. The story is told that he was trying to accurately prove sterile non-life processes creating life. Now I have no problem with such experiments. I think it's kool to try and find out the processes which are answers to questions begging to be found. We have inventions for which we copy the designs already found in nature anyway. The ONLY important thing the Miller-Urey experiments proved is that an intelligence must be employed to manipulate all the correct elements if life is to have success.

Unfortunately for them at every turn some on the spot just so story needs to be instantly contrived so as not to expose any ignorance. For example I brought up the detrimental effects of water (the perfect solvent) quickly would degenerate those compounds. The gang also never talk about that proprties seawater and even geothermal springs markedly inhibits the self-assembly processes for that most unholy of holies, "Prebiotic Soup". But rather than back down and admit they don't know something, a damage control on the spot story telling mechanism somewhere in the back of the brain kicks in and takes over. Then when that story is shot down, then you're being mean spirited and accused of attacking them under the security blanket of Moderator bias.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users