whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: median on November 03, 2013, 12:50:32 PM

Title: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 03, 2013, 12:50:32 PM
Two things here for Creationists/ID Proponents:

1) Properly articulate the Theory of Evolution (what it is, what it's main claims and evidences are, etc). This requires you to do your homework in order to meet this challenge. You must rightly, accurately, and correctly represent the Theory of Evolution as it is described by those in the professional field who maintain it. So you are going to have to do some research by studying those resources that understand and support the concepts.

PLACES TO START:

-talkorigins.org (http://talkorigins.org)
-http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm (http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm)
-http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html (http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html)
-http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation (http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation)


2) Once you have fully met condition #1, then describe why you disagree with the theory (TOE for short) and what your disagreement actually means to you.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 03, 2013, 01:03:04 PM
No creationist I know disagrees with microevolution. it's the magical macro that we have a problem with.

Like I said, according to evolution, simple cells formed billions of years ago and were on the ground just hanging around. Yet, they want us to believe we can get insects, animals and mammals from these cells lying on the ground.

That is what the absurd part of it is. Even Richard Dawkins can't explain it.

I would just like an Darwinist to explain what the next species was after the first simple cells.

So the timeline is:

Simple cells = billions of years ago
then we get......what species?

Explain this and I will believe in macro.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 03, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
You didn't meet the challenge of the OP. Start there. Until you do so you will continue in ignorance of the science. You are building up Straw men arguments and trying to knock them down. Please describe what the Theory of Evolution states (in your own words) and thoroughly explain it's main evidences.

p.s. - The only difference between "micro" and "macro" is time! There is simply no sound reason for thinking that "micro" has limits that will not allow for divergence (you lost yet?). We have observed speciation in many instances. It's a done deal. You just need to catch up by doing your homework in the related subjects.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: One Above All on November 03, 2013, 01:10:46 PM
BM
This should be fun.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Jag on November 03, 2013, 01:23:19 PM
BM
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 03, 2013, 01:25:09 PM
No creationist I know disagrees with microevolution. it's the magical macro that we have a problem with.

Like I said, according to evolution, simple cells formed billions of years ago and were on the ground just hanging around. Yet, they want us to believe we can get insects, animals and mammals from these cells lying on the ground.

That is what the absurd part of it is. Even Richard Dawkins can't explain it.

I would just like an Darwinist to explain what the next species was after the first simple cells.

So the timeline is:

Simple cells = billions of years ago
then we get......what species?

Explain this and I will believe in macro.

Shep, The demon in your head is forcing you to make false claims about a subject you have never studied. You know you don't understand this. Why are you allowing your demon to make false claims?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 03, 2013, 01:37:28 PM
BM

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 03, 2013, 01:43:05 PM
Skeptic, it's very important that you take some time to understand what the theory of evolution is really about.

Here's a point which should help clarify things.  Each individual genetic changeis like a penny, thus 'microevolution' is like collecting a lot of pennies.  Each one is practically worthless on its own.  But when you get enough pennies, you can buy something with them.  In effect, the individual genetic changes add up and can be exchanged for a larger genetic change.

Now, when these organisms reproduce, they bequeath any changes they've managed to get to their offspring (as well as a number of the unspent pennies).  Like an inheritance.  Of course, each offspring inherits different things, so they earn their own pennies and exchange them for larger genetic changes of their own. 

Now, another thing to remember about the larger changes is that they're not finished structures.  It would be better to think of them as larger units of money, which can themselves be exchanged for larger units of money.  Not only that, but there are many different currencies - so an organism might get a cent, then get a yen, a franc, a mark, and so on.  But as they collect them, they can exchange them for larger units of money and ultimately trade their way up to very large changes - which is 'macroevolution'.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 03, 2013, 02:52:34 PM
The moment I see someone say "I believe Microevolution happens, but macro is a myth" I facepalm.

Seriously skeptic, do some elementary research.

EDIT:
As median has stated, the ONLY difference between macro and micro is TIME, and lots of it in most cases, however there are occasions where it happens relatively quickly, i.e the Cambrian explosion, or ring-species.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Deus ex Machina on November 03, 2013, 03:40:15 PM
No creationist I know disagrees with microevolution. it's the magical macro that we have a problem with.

It's not "magical". :D It's essentially the same as "micro" - but invariably involving some situation where a population group finds itself in a new ecological niche towards which its prior morphology is not so ideally suited: whether by predators, available food, or climate, nature will select for traits that are more suited to the altered circumstances of the population group in question. That, plus a bit of time (think how much we've modified the shapes of dogs in just 10,000 years - some of which to the point where they cannot interbreed without human medical intervention) is essentially what's required.

Quote
Like I said, according to evolution, simple cells formed billions of years ago and were on the ground just hanging around. Yet, they want us to believe we can get insects, animals and mammals from these cells lying on the ground.

I'm not sure what you mean by the idea that cells were "on the ground just hanging around".

Simple cells are thought to have arrived not long after the Late Heavy Bombardment - around 3,900mya. Those simple cells may have resembled prokaryotes, though probably not as complex as modern prokaryotes and certainly not as complex as even unicellular eukaryotic cells.

The last universal ancestor - the most recent common ancestor of all extant living things - is thought to have existed around 3,500mya, but though that universal common ancestor would have been a single-celled organism, it was probably itself rather more sophisticated than the earliest living things, which had - after all - been around for about 400mya before then.

Cyanobacteria are thought to have appeared around 3,000mya, and given that they produce oxygen as a waste product of photosynthesis, are thought to have been responsible for the ensuing Oxygen Catastrophe and the "Great Oxidation Event" around 2,500mya.

Eukaryotic cells - which are the ancestors of all plants and animals - are thought to have appeared by around 1,850mya - that's more than 1.5 billion years after the last universal ancestor, and following the Oxygen Catastrophe which - while bad news for many early bacteria - was a big boon to eukaryotes. And it was another 800 million years or so before it's thought that multicellular life appeared - and that multicellular life was initially much more basic than insects, mammals and other animals (and plants) - we're talking algae here. The ozone layer is thought to have formed around 600mya - due to the large accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere - and most of the modern phyla of animals are believed to have appeared between 500-600mya.

Quote
That is what the absurd part of it is. Even Richard Dawkins can't explain it.

The problem with questions like this is that they're easy to ask, but as above, the answers are not in fact as simple as the wording of the questions would imply. (Anyone have a child who constantly asks "Why?" Simple question, isn't it? The answers... not so much.) I am not sure that people know for sure what the "first cells" truly were, which makes it all that much harder to say what the "second cells" (or the first speciation) would have entailed. Paleontologists and geologists have discovered, at least in broad-brush terms, somewhat of the history of our planet, and of life on it; but not all living things leave traces in the rocks, and single-celled organisms that lived more than three billion years ago are especially hard to find.

It's also assuming that such a speciation event would have been the first: if one delves into abiogenetic hypotheses, one may postulate "speciation events" in there where certain biochemical processes worked better than others, and one group became the "first cells", and the other(s) didn't make it. So the question itself may contain a false premise - but I digress.

Quote
So the timeline is:

Simple cells = billions of years ago
then we get......what species?

Explain this and I will believe in macro.

You might find this a more useful timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 04, 2013, 12:22:18 AM
The moment I see someone say "I believe Microevolution happens, but macro is a myth" I facepalm.

Seriously skeptic, do some elementary research.

EDIT:
As median has stated, the ONLY difference between macro and micro is TIME, and lots of it in most cases, however there are occasions where it happens relatively quickly, i.e the Cambrian explosion, or ring-species.

It needs to be pointed out, to people who don't know anything, that by relatively quickly, we mean it took 70-80 million years, not three weeks. But creationists cannot think about both 'quick' and 'millions of years' in one fundy lifetime, so they just ignore that little detail and ask things like "how could those changes happen so fast?"

The Cambrian Explosion happened relatively fast, when compared to the fossil record for other periods. But not really really really fast, like the frickin' roadrunner.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 04, 2013, 12:32:53 AM
The Cambrian Explosion happened relatively fast, when compared to the fossil record for other periods. But not really really really fast, like the frickin' roadrunner.
Would you say it was fast compared to plate tectonics?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 12:54:37 AM
No creationist I know disagrees with microevolution. it's the magical macro that we have a problem with.

It's not "magical". :D It's essentially the same as "micro" - but invariably involving some situation where a population group finds itself in a new ecological niche towards which its prior morphology is not so ideally suited: whether by predators, available food, or climate, nature will select for traits that are more suited to the altered circumstances of the population group in question. That, plus a bit of time (think how much we've modified the shapes of dogs in just 10,000 years - some of which to the point where they cannot interbreed without human medical intervention) is essentially what's required.

Quote
Like I said, according to evolution, simple cells formed billions of years ago and were on the ground just hanging around. Yet, they want us to believe we can get insects, animals and mammals from these cells lying on the ground.

I'm not sure what you mean by the idea that cells were "on the ground just hanging around".

Simple cells are thought to have arrived not long after the Late Heavy Bombardment - around 3,900mya. Those simple cells may have resembled prokaryotes, though probably not as complex as modern prokaryotes and certainly not as complex as even unicellular eukaryotic cells.

The last universal ancestor - the most recent common ancestor of all extant living things - is thought to have existed around 3,500mya, but though that universal common ancestor would have been a single-celled organism, it was probably itself rather more sophisticated than the earliest living things, which had - after all - been around for about 400mya before then.

Cyanobacteria are thought to have appeared around 3,000mya, and given that they produce oxygen as a waste product of photosynthesis, are thought to have been responsible for the ensuing Oxygen Catastrophe and the "Great Oxidation Event" around 2,500mya.

Eukaryotic cells - which are the ancestors of all plants and animals - are thought to have appeared by around 1,850mya - that's more than 1.5 billion years after the last universal ancestor, and following the Oxygen Catastrophe which - while bad news for many early bacteria - was a big boon to eukaryotes. And it was another 800 million years or so before it's thought that multicellular life appeared - and that multicellular life was initially much more basic than insects, mammals and other animals (and plants) - we're talking algae here. The ozone layer is thought to have formed around 600mya - due to the large accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere - and most of the modern phyla of animals are believed to have appeared between 500-600mya.

Quote
That is what the absurd part of it is. Even Richard Dawkins can't explain it.

The problem with questions like this is that they're easy to ask, but as above, the answers are not in fact as simple as the wording of the questions would imply. (Anyone have a child who constantly asks "Why?" Simple question, isn't it? The answers... not so much.) I am not sure that people know for sure what the "first cells" truly were, which makes it all that much harder to say what the "second cells" (or the first speciation) would have entailed. Paleontologists and geologists have discovered, at least in broad-brush terms, somewhat of the history of our planet, and of life on it; but not all living things leave traces in the rocks, and single-celled organisms that lived more than three billion years ago are especially hard to find.

It's also assuming that such a speciation event would have been the first: if one delves into abiogenetic hypotheses, one may postulate "speciation events" in there where certain biochemical processes worked better than others, and one group became the "first cells", and the other(s) didn't make it. So the question itself may contain a false premise - but I digress.

Quote
So the timeline is:

Simple cells = billions of years ago
then we get......what species?

Explain this and I will believe in macro.

You might find this a more useful timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

Yes! Yes! Now we are getting somewhere! Nice post!

In that link about the timeline of evolution it says that 1 billion years ago, there was multicellular life. Then 600 million years ago, there was simple animals.

So in 400 million years we went from clumps of cells on the ground to simple animals. How did that happen? That is mind-boggling.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 12:59:42 AM

As median has stated, the ONLY difference between macro and micro is TIME,
and lots of it in most cases, however there are occasions where it happens relatively quickly, i.e the Cambrian explosion, or ring-species.

Yes, Kent Hovind mentioned that in one of his lectures on Creation Science. He said, "Time is the evolutionist's God. They need it to make the belief work."



Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:02:10 AM
It's not "magical". :D It's essentially the same as "micro" - but invariably involving some situation where a population group finds itself in a new ecological niche towards which its prior morphology is not so ideally suited: whether by predators, available food, or climate, nature will select for traits that are more suited to the altered circumstances of the population group in question. That, plus a bit of time (think how much we've modified the shapes of dogs in just 10,000 years - some of which to the point where they cannot interbreed without human medical intervention) is essentially what's required.

They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 04, 2013, 01:02:24 AM
So in 400 million years we went from clumps of cells on the ground to simple animals. How did that happen? That is mind-boggling.

In the water, not on the ground.  And it happened because they stuck together in colonies that had a simple structure.  The earliest fossils we have of multicellular organisms with a definite structure are of things called Rangeomorphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangeomorph).  Here is a post I made on the topic some time ago:

I actually just attended a colloquium presentation on a topic related to this.  The earliest fossils of multicellular animals were Rangeomorphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangeomorph).  These were fractal organisms, to 4 fractal iterations:

(http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/content/83/6/897/F6.large.jpg)

A collection of populations of these were preserved in a very fine-mud turbidite nearly 600 million years ago, in rocks that are now a part of Newfoundland here in Canada (the turbidite was buried shortly afterward by directly-dateable volcanic ash):

(http://www.astrobio.net/images/galleryimages_images/Gallery_Image_6090.jpg)

They were buried in-situ, preserving excellent detail and allowing scientists to see where members of these species were placed in relation to each other.  This information allows us to get an idea of what that pre-Cambrian ecology must have looked like:

(http://www.astrobio.net/images/galleryimages_images/Gallery_Image_6089.jpg)

These organisms would have been absorbtion and/or suspension feeders, much like today's sponges and corals but without the same degree of tissue or structural specialization, and certainly no vascular system[1].  Their fractal shape allowed their cells to remain sessile[2] while maximizing their cellular colony's surface area.

Taxonomically, they fall somewhere between fungi and sponges, and are the earliest examples of animal life ever discovered.  They are also an evolutionary dead-end[3], as no subsequent organisms show any evidence of descent from these ones.  But they're still the first multicellular life ever found, and the benefits of multicellularity are evident from what we've learned about their structure and mode of life.
 1. A water-vascular system is present in both sponges and corals, and some sort of vascular system is present in absolutely every animal species.  This is one of the qualities that distinguishes the simplest animals from fungi.
 2. Able to stay in the same place rather than being swept away with whatever current came along.
 3. This makes sense when you consider their body-plan.  Really, where do you go from there, in evolutionary terms?  The fractal body-plan, efficient though it may have been at what it did considering its simplicity, just doesn't allow for the specialization of body parts that characterizes all other animal species.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 04, 2013, 01:05:13 AM
Yes, Kent Hovind mentioned that in one of his lectures on Creation Science. He said, "Time is the evolutionist's God. They need it to make the belief work."

Fortunately, time on Earth really has passed.  It's a "god" we know exists.  Though, calling it a "god" is kind of silly because time lacks the qualites one would normally associate with a god.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:05:55 AM
The "precambrian ecology" does not look anything like animals to me. Where's the paws and legs and teeth?

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 04, 2013, 01:07:26 AM
The "precambrian ecology" does not look anything like animals to me. Where's the paws and legs and teeth?

Probably in the same place they are on this animal:
(http://www.spongeguide.org/images/sponge2.jpg)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:07:59 AM

Yes! Yes! Now we are getting somewhere! Nice post!

In that link about the timeline of evolution it says that 1 billion years ago, there was multicellular life. Then 600 million years ago, there was simple animals.

So in 400 million years we went from clumps of cells on the ground to simple animals. How did that happen? That is mind-boggling.

Is it "mind-boggling" enough for you to concoct irrational arguments as an excuse for believing your religion (for which you have no evidence)? See, I don't believe for a second that your How did that happen? statement is actually sincere. What you've shown thus far is that you personal 'require' an alternative that sounds better before you will even consider that your position is in error. And that is plain faulty thinking. Errors do not need alternatives. Irrational religious arguments don't need replacement. They simply need to be retracted. In this case, letting go of irrational arguments should lead you to the most honest position - the one where you admit the statement, "I don't know"
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:08:56 AM
The "precambrian ecology" does not look anything like animals to me. Where's the paws and legs and teeth?

Probably in the same place they are on this animal:
(http://www.spongeguide.org/images/sponge2.jpg)

Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 04, 2013, 01:10:08 AM
Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.

Very true.  I'm glad you paid attention in Kindergarten.

Now, what does this have to do with the first animal life on Earth?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 04, 2013, 01:10:38 AM
Skeptic,

You are so moronic THAT is mind-boggling.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:11:22 AM

As median has stated, the ONLY difference between macro and micro is TIME,
and lots of it in most cases, however there are occasions where it happens relatively quickly, i.e the Cambrian explosion, or ring-species.

Yes, Kent Hovind mentioned that in one of his lectures on Creation Science. He said, "Time is the evolutionist's God. They need it to make the belief work."

And you just believed him on faith when he said that, didn't you? Without even critically analyzing that statement, you bought it (hook, line, and sinker) without ever attempting to look at both sides before making a quick judgment.

FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 04, 2013, 01:12:41 AM
Faith is the absence of evidence.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:13:04 AM
Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.

Very true.  I'm glad you paid attention in Kindergarten.

Now, what does this have to do with the first animal life on Earth?

How did we get those kinds of animals from the early "precambrian ecology?" Seems like a big stretch.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:14:48 AM
Skeptic,

You are so moronic THAT is mind-boggling.

-Nam

It's pure comedy to watch crazy willfully ignorant Christian Creationists pretend that they are smart (faking like they know the science and can 'just figure it out' from Wikipedia and Kent Hovind.

Hovind has been refuted long since! Search YouTube - Kent Hovind Owned. At least 3 different evolutionary biologists rip him to shreds (where he has nothing to say but repeating his refuted beliefs).
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:14:54 AM
Skeptic,

You are so moronic THAT is mind-boggling.

-Nam

I suppose if I said this to an atheist, I would get scolded and get called intolerant and judgmental.

But when an atheist says it to a Christian, it's A-OK, I suppose....
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 04, 2013, 01:15:35 AM
How did we get those kinds of animals from the early "precambrian ecology?"

Slowly.  You do know what "precambrian" means right?

Seems like a big stretch.

Poofing them into existence in the space of an instant doesn't?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:16:38 AM
Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.

Very true.  I'm glad you paid attention in Kindergarten.

Now, what does this have to do with the first animal life on Earth?

How did we get those kinds of animals from the early "precambrian ecology?" Seems like a big stretch.

We know it "seems" like a big stretch to you, b/c you haven't studied the science and are ignorant of evolutionary biology in general. Please meet the challenge of the OP (part #1).
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:17:36 AM
FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 04, 2013, 01:23:32 AM
Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

Certainly, we could be wrong about how things started, but trying to figure things out based on the available evidence is far, far better than declaring "magic man done it, lets not think about it anymore".
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:25:54 AM
Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.

Very true.  I'm glad you paid attention in Kindergarten.

Now, what does this have to do with the first animal life on Earth?

How did we get those kinds of animals from the early "precambrian ecology?" Seems like a big stretch.

We know it "seems" like a big stretch to you, b/c you haven't studied the science and are ignorant of evolutionary biology in general. Please meet the challenge of the OP (part #1).

Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 04, 2013, 01:26:03 AM
Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.
Not in the sense that you mean.  It's actually a lot closer to confidence than anything, because it's based on reconstructing the evidence we do have.  No different than a forensic specialist reconstructing a crime from the evidence left at the scene.  Would you call the conclusions of this forensics specialist faith too?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:27:46 AM

They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.

This comment (as with nearly all of your comments regarding evolution) demonstrates, once again, that you know next to nothing about the science. You do not know how biologists define macroevolution (b/c you have your own simplistically twisted idea of it - which didn't come from scientists) and you are pontificating from a heightened egotistical ignorance (along with confirmation bias). Again, please meet the challenge of the OP by demonstrating that you can actually go do some homework to find out what the science actually states. Maybe start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:28:26 AM
Certainly, we could be wrong about how things started, but trying to figure things out based on the available evidence is far, far better than declaring "magic man done it, lets not think about it anymore".

That is simply not true. Plenty of the most important discoveries in science were made by Christians.

These people "stopped thinking about it" according to you?

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 04, 2013, 01:29:33 AM
Would you call the conclusions of this forensics specialist faith too?

Given that he thinks "time" is a god of some sort, probably.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 04, 2013, 01:29:53 AM
Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.
This is pointless nitpicking.

Or are you going to try to argue that a species diverging into two separate but related species is not a change in the traits of a population over time?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:31:21 AM
Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.
This is pointless nitpicking.

Or are you going to try to argue that a species diverging into two separate but related species is not a change in the traits of a population over time?

That is evolution! A fruit fly becoming a new species of fruit fly is not macroevolution. Key word is new species of fruit fly!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 04, 2013, 01:31:53 AM
Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.

Speciation *is* a change in the traits of a population.  Chromosomes occasionally fuse or split, and the resultant population of offspring becomes a new species with a common ancestor but unlike other descendants of that same ancestor.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 04, 2013, 01:32:28 AM
That is simply not true. Plenty of the most important discoveries in science were made by Christians.

These people "stopped thinking about it" according to you?

I dunno about "these people".

You, on the other hand...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:33:11 AM
FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

NOPE. Reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing without evidence, in spite of evidence, or pretending to know something you don't know. Faith is FIXED, rigid, and held tightly. It is defended in spite of the evidence (like you do with the bible). Science is NOT faith based. When you have demonstrable evidence you do not need faith. Do not try to put science in the same category as your religion. They are nothing alike in the approach to seeking truth. You START with your conclusion and work backwards. That is NOT how science works.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:33:26 AM
Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.
Not in the sense that you mean.  It's actually a lot closer to confidence than anything, because it's based on reconstructing the evidence we do have.  No different than a forensic specialist reconstructing a crime from the evidence left at the scene.  Would you call the conclusions of this forensics specialist faith too?

It's not 100% accurate. Sometimes they can't decide what happened at all. Sometimes they are wrong and an innocent man goes on death row and gets killed before they say "Opps!"
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:35:58 AM
FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

NOPE. Reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing without evidence, in spite of evidence, or pretending to know something you don't know. Faith is FIXED, rigid, and held tightly. It is defended in spite of the evidence (like you do with the bible). Science is NOT faith based. When you have demonstrable evidence you do not need faith. Do not try to put science in the same category as your religion. They are nothing alike in the approach to seeking truth. You START with your conclusion and work backwards. That is NOT how science works.

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:38:29 AM

Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.

You have not completely met the challenge of the OP. Please try again. Do your homework and be thorough! We need details from you here so that we can know that you fully understand the principles of evolutionary explanations. What are the evidences that biologists take seriously when it comes to evolution? Have you researched it? What are the mechanisms that drive evolution to take place? What is speciation, genetic drift, natural selection, and divergence? Please demonstrate that you understand these concepts.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:39:20 AM
I also have never seen Dawkins explain how bones started evolving, how hearts started evolving, and how blood evolved.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 04, 2013, 01:42:40 AM
but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

You say that, but have no problems putting all your eggs in the religion basket, even though that is completely man-made.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:43:07 AM

Evolution is a change in the traits of populations over time.

notice the definition does not say, "Evolution is the process by which species eventually form into brand new species."

Macroevolution is not part of the definition of evolution.

You have not completely met the challenge of the OP. Please try again. Do your homework and be thorough! We need details from you here so that we can know that you fully understand the principles of evolutionary explanations. What are the evidences that biologists take seriously when it comes to evolution? Have you researched it? What are the mechanisms that drive evolution to take place? What is speciation, genetic drift, natural selection, and divergence? Please demonstrate that you understand these concepts.

Believe me, I have studied it. That is why I am doubting it. Isn't that what you guys say about the Bible? Please don't be hypocritical.

Macro is sort of "lumped in" on the backburner as a diversion. They cite all these microevolution evidences and just slap macroevolution on the caboose when no one's looking.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:45:07 AM
but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

You say that, but have no problems putting all your eggs in the religion basket, even though that is completely man-made.

No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:45:51 AM

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Listen to yourself. "Science is man made and based on nothing but..." What is man-made is quite good! Look around you! Your house. Your car. Your computer. All of modern conveniences of which you now benefit (based in science) are MAN-MADE! For you to sound so reductionist as to say science is "just" man made is insulting to everyone who you rely upon to be alive and stay healthy.

More importantly, you are a hypocrite! You put your "faith" in men just the same! If you were in a horrible car accident and broke your back would you refuse the ambulance and just pray?? If someone you loved was dying of a horrible decease would you seek modern medicine or refuse treatment and just get down on your knees until the person died? Get honest with yourself dude. You are in the same boat everyone else is in. It makes no difference that people CAN make mistakes. Just b/c something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is PROBABLE or likely to occur. You have very flawed black/white thinking.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 04, 2013, 01:48:09 AM
but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Ah, ye of too much faith. When you have to denegrate everything in the universe to sort of make your little tiny point, you're probably doing it wrong. In fact I can say for certain that you are.

But you are totally right about one thing. It is indeed possible for a man-made system to be completely wrong. Christianity, for instance.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 04, 2013, 01:48:32 AM
is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Completely wrong?  Possible, but fairly unlikely.

Science is interesting because it progresses as new information is discovered.  If a fact is found to be wrong, it becomes part of science's history (e.g. the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos) but is not used in current practice.  In this way, science tends to move towards more accuracy and a better understanding of the physical universe.

Religion eschews this kind of corrective mechanism in favour of tradition, so religions become less wrong by spawning new sects (but the parent sect usually keeps going).  The new sect can even go the other way, towards Even More Wrong Than Its Predecessor.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 04, 2013, 01:49:05 AM
That is evolution! A fruit fly becoming a new species of fruit fly is not macroevolution. Key word is new species of fruit fly!
Okay, now look at the implications of that statement.  Think about the future divergences between those two species of fruit flies.  There is nothing in biology or DNA preventing them from becoming quite different after they diverge.

And think about what that says about past divergences.  If they can evolve major differences after they diverge into different species, then what is there to say that the same thing could not have happened in the past?  The same thing could easily have happened to species in the past, after they diverged away from species which were once very similat, but are quite different now.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:49:45 AM

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Listen to yourself. "Science is man made and based on nothing but..." What is man-made is quite good! Look around you! Your house. Your car. Your computer. All of modern conveniences of which you now benefit (based in science) are MAN-MADE! For you to sound so reductionist as to say science is "just" man made is insulting to everyone who you rely upon to be alive and stay healthy.

More importantly, you are a hypocrite! You put your "faith" in men just the same! If you were in a horrible car accident and broke your back would you refuse the ambulance and just pray?? If someone you loved was dying of a horrible decease would you seek modern medicine or refuse treatment and just get down on your knees until the person died? Get honest with yourself dude. You are in the same boat everyone else is in. It makes no difference that people CAN make mistakes. Just b/c something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is PROBABLE or likely to occur. You have very flawed black/white thinking.

Yes, but that is direct science vs indirect science. Computers, cars, tvs, are direct science. We see the proof in front of us.

Indirect science is trying to explain what happened before anyone was around to see anything.

A lot of creationists love science. We just have a problem with indirect science speculating "billions of years ago" as being trumpeted as The Truth.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:50:22 AM

Believe me, I have studied it. That is why I am doubting it. Isn't that what you guys say about the Bible? Please don't be hypocritical.

Macro is sort of "lumped in" on the backburner as a diversion. They cite all these microevolution evidences and just slap macroevolution on the caboose when no one's looking.

"When no ones looking" are f***ing kidding?! You are an outright liar and I'm calling bullshit right now. YOU HAVE NOT studied the science (sorry Wikipedia, Answers in Genesis, and drdino.com don't count). You need to actually study from real scientists teaching and working in the field. Until you do that, you don't have shit in terms of knowledge. Your words overwhelmingly demonstrate that you don't know the science. Stop pretending. You're only hurting yourself. No one else.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 04, 2013, 01:53:08 AM
No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.

Ah.

So Zeus, Apollo, and all the rest of the Greek gods really do exist.  No way that mythology came from people imagination.

Likewise, the gods of Hinduism really do exist.  People can't make those things up.

Likewise, Battlefield Earth is a historical document.  No way L. Ron Hubbard made up that Scientology crap.  It's for real.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:55:03 AM
No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.

Ah.

So Zeus, Apollo, and all the rest of the Greek gods really do exist.  No way that mythology came from people imagination.

Likewise, the gods of Hinduism really do exist.  People can't make those things up.

Likewise, Battlefield Earth is a historical document.  No way L. Ron Hubbard made up that Scientology crap.  It's for real.

We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

but this is off-topic for this thread.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 01:56:44 AM

Yes, but that is direct science vs indirect science. Computers, cars, tvs, are direct science. We see the proof in front of us.

Indirect science is trying to explain what happened before anyone was around to see anything.

A lot of creationists love science. We just have a problem with indirect science speculating "billions of years ago" as being trumpeted as The Truth.

That's b/c you have a presuppositional bias that you are trying to defend, and that's called Confirmation Bias. You are STARTING with your conclusion and trying to work backwards. It's irrational to do so. Science operates quite differently. You should know better than this. Science operates upon what can be demonstrated and reasonably inferred from the mountains of evidence that exist. You don't have any evidence of "creation". It's a mere assertion based upon your ASSUMPTION of the bible. You are trying to smuggle your religion into science and act like it's cool (all the while trying to attack evolutionary biology). It's not cool and it won't be tolerated. For those of us that actually care about truth your religious assumptions (which are not science) are insufficient to explain anything. They get us absolutely nowhere. All they do is spread deliberate ignorance and ant-science propaganda based in your fear of what might be true.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 01:59:24 AM

Yes, but that is direct science vs indirect science. Computers, cars, tvs, are direct science. We see the proof in front of us.

Indirect science is trying to explain what happened before anyone was around to see anything.

A lot of creationists love science. We just have a problem with indirect science speculating "billions of years ago" as being trumpeted as The Truth.

That's b/c you have a presuppositional bias that you are trying to defend, and that's called Confirmation Bias. You are STARTING with your conclusion and trying to work backwards. It's irrational to do so. Science operates quite differently. You should know better than this. Science operates upon what can be demonstrated and reasonably inferred from the mountains of evidence that exist. You don't have any evidence of "creation". It's a mere assertion based upon your ASSUMPTION of the bible. You are trying to smuggle your religion into science and act like it's cool (all the while trying to attack evolutionary biology). It's not cool and it won't be tolerated. For those of us that actually care about truth your religious assumptions (which are not science) are insufficient to explain anything. They get us absolutely nowhere. All they do is spread deliberate ignorance and ant-science propaganda based in your fear of what might be true.

No. I have stated that if I were to become atheist again, I would still not accept macroevolution. Christianity has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 04, 2013, 01:59:34 AM
We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads.

Prove it.


Quote
Why do you think people believe in all these different religions?

The same reason people believe in christianity.  Indoctrination.


Quote
They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

Do demons heal amputees?  Maybe it'll be worth the effort to find out.   :o
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 04, 2013, 02:02:06 AM
Let me get this straight. Your god decided that the only way humans could digest food would be to make human intestines home to 1000 different kinds of bacteria, so numerous that there are ten times as many bacterial cells in humans as there are human cells in humans, and he took great care to change the species of bacteria so that people living in Asia have an almost completely different bacteria biome in their intestine as do North Americans. African intestinal bacteria are different yet. And just to make sure other bacteria had a job to do, he also put many trillions on our skin, and made sure that if the bacteria all died off, we couldn't survive. And he did this because he loves us. Right?

Your god can't make a person who can digest food without using bacteria? What sort of whimpy god is that? He can't make it possible for us to survive in our environment without bacteria on our skin? What was he thinking?

But hey, if you say so...

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 02:02:49 AM

We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

but this is off-topic for this thread.

Old books are not evidence of demons and your saying so doesn't make it so. Again, you are demonstrating an ANTI-SCIENCE mindset. You don't care about actually having to apply critical thinking, evidence, and reason to your claims. You just WANT to keep your assumptions. But this approach fails miserably b/c it is unreliable for separating fact from fiction. Before you can merely ASSERT that a 'demon did this or that' you need to actually demonstrate there is such a thing. This pertains to the subject b/c it shows that, hidden beneath the surface, you don't care about science or what is reasonable, rational, and demonstrable. You have a double standard for fact finding - and it shows.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 04, 2013, 02:03:55 AM
It's not 100% accurate. Sometimes they can't decide what happened at all. Sometimes they are wrong and an innocent man goes on death row and gets killed before they say "Opps!"
Of course it isn't 100% accurate.  But you don't need perfect accuracy for something to be reliable and useful.  A certain percentage of manufactured items (say computers) have failures that aren't caught before they're sold.  Does that make computers unreliable or useless?

Certainly, there are times when forensic specialists get things wrong, and there are times when forensic science doesn't give a clear answer.  But part of life is dealing with the times we're uncertain or wrong.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 04, 2013, 02:06:15 AM
No. I have stated that if I were to become atheist again, I would still not accept macroevolution. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

I hear you also don't accept macro-walking. You believe it is possible to walk from your house to your car, but you know it is impossible to walk all the way to the store. Micro-walking is true. Macro-walking is not. It can't be. Why would anyone ever think it is possible to walk a long way?

What, pray tell, stops a whole bunch of little (micro) changes from eventually becoming bigger (macro) changes? Biology? Or your low comprehension level?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 02:06:52 AM

No. I have stated that if I were to become atheist again, I would still not accept macroevolution. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Pure speculation and I call bullshit. You do not know WHAT you would be like (or what you would accept) if you experienced a worldview change. I was a Christian (arguing just like you online) for over 10 years. You cannot assume you know how you would be if things were different. If things changed, then all bets are off. Stop assuming you know things which you clearly don't know.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 04, 2013, 02:08:12 AM
One cannot speculate on things they have yet done.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 04, 2013, 02:08:59 AM
I doubt Skeptic666 was ever an atheist. But if he was, he wasn't very good at that either.

Edit: I had his name wrong.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 02:12:25 AM
I doubt Skeptic was ever an atheist. But if he was, he wasn't very good at that either.

It's nonsensical to say, "If I became atheist again". What if I became an astrologer and then "became" a non-astrologer? Do I need that title for a lack of belief? Were talking about a lack of belief here, not a positive position. I'm going to write a book, "When I became a non-unicorn-believer". Well gosh, what do non-unicorn-believers do with themselves!!!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Zankuu on November 04, 2013, 02:14:42 AM
I doubt Skeptic666 was ever an atheist. But if he was, he wasn't very good at that either.

Mmhmm.

You haven’t elaborated on why you were an atheist, but from what you've typed you had poor reasons for being an atheist then, and you have poor reasons for being a Christian now.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 04, 2013, 02:19:54 AM
I doubt Skeptic666 was ever an atheist. But if he was, he wasn't very good at that either.

Mmhmm.

You haven’t elaborated on why you were an atheist, but from what you've typed you had poor reasons for being an atheist then, and you have poor reasons for being a Christian now.

Well, either great minds think alike (though not necessarily simultaneously), or I'm a plagiarist. Or our observations were inevitable. I'd let Skeptic666 decide, but he's still trying to learn his shapes and colors and things.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 04, 2013, 02:24:10 AM
No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.

Ah.

So Zeus, Apollo, and all the rest of the Greek gods really do exist.  No way that mythology came from people imagination.

Likewise, the gods of Hinduism really do exist.  People can't make those things up.

Likewise, Battlefield Earth is a historical document.  No way L. Ron Hubbard made up that Scientology crap.  It's for real.

We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

but this is off-topic for this thread.

Exactly Shep.



No. I have stated that if I were to become atheist again, I would still not accept macroevolution. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Shep, your demon has everything to do with it. Over and over again you are denying reality.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 04, 2013, 02:31:22 AM
I doubt Skeptic666 was ever an atheist. But if he was, he wasn't very good at that either.

Edit: I had his name wrong.

I've been saying that since he stated it but to a person who believes in their particular "god", that's most likely what they consider themselves before the miracle of their god opened their eyes.

Not the same as being an actual atheist.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 04, 2013, 02:40:32 AM
I'm impressed.

Skeptic54768 not only ignores the OP, but leads everyone on a merry troll chase.

Quote
...in order to meet this challenge. You must rightly, accurately, and correctly represent the Theory of Evolution as it is described by those in the professional field who maintain it.


Skeptic54768, you have yet to meet the conditions of the OP in that you have failed time and again to describe the theory of evolution as understood by scientists using your own words.

This is a pretty simple litmus test on whether a person actually understands an argument: can you state it in a way that accurately reflects your counterpoint view?  Given that you have not, it seems fairly safe to assume that you cannot.

I'm curious skeptic54768, do you intend to meet the simple conditions of this question, or merely run in more circles avoiding it?

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Zankuu on November 04, 2013, 02:41:04 AM
Well, either great minds think alike (though not necessarily simultaneously), or I'm a plagiarist. Or our observations were inevitable. I'd let Skeptic666 decide, but he's still trying to learn his shapes and colors and things.

"You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the observation of inevitability."
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 04, 2013, 02:45:06 AM
I also have never seen Dawkins explain how bones started evolving, how hearts started evolving, and how blood evolved.

If you don't know something just admit that you don't know it.

Don't let your demon confuse you with fantasy.

There are many things which you do not know but other people do.

(Shep has probably not noticed why you are calling him skeptic666. He doesn't realise it is in the number he typed. 54768. These numbers add up to exactly the same as 66666. Take one from 7 add it to the 5. That is the first group of two 6. Take two from 8 add it to 4. That is the second group of two 6. Then the last 6 is the third group of 6. That is three groups of six.)

666 Shep. Why was that so easy Shep?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 04, 2013, 03:25:41 AM
The Cambrian Explosion happened relatively fast, when compared to the fossil record for other periods. But not really really really fast, like the frickin' roadrunner.
Would you say it was fast compared to plate tectonics?

The Cambrian explosion still took millions of years. It was recently calculated that the rate of evolution was three to five times what it is today. That is not surprising. The animals had to adapt quickly to hunting and being hunted, and there were plenty of unoccupied habitats to colonise.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 04, 2013, 07:22:16 AM
FYI, reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when you have no evidence or good reason.

Those "reasonable expectations" are still based on faith though. Since you can't rewind a tape of the universe forming and go back and watch what happened, there is always a chance you could be wrong about how it happened. So it is very much a faith.

NOPE. Reasonable expectations based upon evidence is NOT faith. Faith is believing without evidence, in spite of evidence, or pretending to know something you don't know. Faith is FIXED, rigid, and held tightly. It is defended in spite of the evidence (like you do with the bible). Science is NOT faith based. When you have demonstrable evidence you do not need faith. Do not try to put science in the same category as your religion. They are nothing alike in the approach to seeking truth. You START with your conclusion and work backwards. That is NOT how science works.

but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

Science is based on experiment and evidence, Shep. Your demon is leading you astray. This is another example of false information.

Look at your name again skeptic54768. See how you have typed three symmetrical circles around the 6. These are 6, 5 and 7, 4 and 8. You were saying that people subconsciously know what they believe. Explain this 666 in your subconscious Shep. Why did you type three times around the 6? Explain all the things you said you saw. Is this normal Shep?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 04, 2013, 07:47:45 AM
They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.

Skeptic, I think this question might help you in your understanding.  It sounds ridiculous on first reading, but I assure you that it is a serious question.  To answer it in anything other than a flippant way will give you a great understanding of what evolutionary theory actually says.  Are you ready?  Okay - here's the question.

What is a dog?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Ataraxia on November 04, 2013, 07:55:55 AM
Yes! Yes! Now we are getting somewhere! Nice post!

In that link about the timeline of evolution it says that 1 billion years ago, there was multicellular life. Then 600 million years ago, there was simple animals.

So in 400 million years we went from clumps of cells on the ground to simple animals. How did that happen? That is mind-boggling.

What boggles my mind is how you believe in an all powerful God who isn't able to set up a universe in such a way that macroevolution can happen.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 04, 2013, 07:58:58 AM
We just have a problem with indirect science speculating "billions of years ago" as being trumpeted as The Truth.

Hmm.  How long will you be in heaven with your god, 54768?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 04, 2013, 07:59:30 AM

They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.

The "precambrian ecology" does not look anything like animals to me. Where's the paws and legs and teeth?

Dogs don't live underwater. Neither do giraffes.

A dog is an animal used by a demon to control someone's mind, so that they cannot understand evolution.

How is that for a definition?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Mrjason on November 04, 2013, 08:38:11 AM
A dog is an animal used by a demon to control someone's mind, so that they cannot understand evolution.

How is that for a definition?

Like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWtWAvUb-4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWtWAvUb-4)

Bad demon, sit. SIT!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jdawg70 on November 04, 2013, 11:08:36 AM
We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think I believe in my religion? I get my prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to me.
Fixed that for ya.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Jag on November 04, 2013, 12:01:25 PM
Has skep actually gotten around to addressing the OP? Has he described the ToE or is he just continuing his nonsense from other topics? I can't see where he actually got around to this, but my eyes do have a tendency to glaze over when I see his name so I might have missed it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 04, 2013, 12:35:00 PM
short answer; no.
long answer; no.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Jag on November 04, 2013, 12:39:12 PM
^^^Thanks for saving me from the headache and nausea induced by reading his posts.  ;)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: shnozzola on November 04, 2013, 07:24:42 PM
The discussion we've been having with the DTs has me studying abiogenesis in wiki.  It seems most plausible that ocean water would be involved, using the idea that we know drives so much at the cellular level - diffusion causing concentration gradients that lead to electrical charge gradients.

I didn't realize there were so many seemingly plausible theories.

It is also interesting with 1 theory that by using math, and extrapolating back in complexity , there is not enough time on earth, so starts the theory of necessary extraterrestrial life.  Wiki also says  that organic compounds are relatively common in space.
 
From wiki:
Quote
A 2001 experiment led by Jason Dworkin[156] subjected a frozen mixture of water, methanol, ammonia and carbon monoxide to UV radiation, mimicking conditions found in an extraterrestrial environment. This combination yielded large amounts of organic material that self-organised to form bubbles or micelles when immersed in water. Dworkin considered these bubbles to resemble cell membranes that enclose and concentrate the chemistry of life, separating their interior from the outside world.

Also mentioned is the Krebs cycle and photosynthesis, as possible very early parts of evolution.

Such cool theories, and we spend so much money on bullets and bombs. 
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 04, 2013, 08:09:25 PM
There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.
Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

It is quite interesting though, I look forward to reading about the origins of life on earth, and how statistically unique the circumstances were.

--------------------- - - -

Also, since I'm at the top of the page I just wanted to remind Skeptic54768 that he still has yet to meet the conditions of the OP.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Deus ex Machina on November 04, 2013, 08:35:23 PM
Yes! Yes! Now we are getting somewhere! Nice post!

In that link about the timeline of evolution it says that 1 billion years ago, there was multicellular life. Then 600 million years ago, there was simple animals.

So in 400 million years we went from clumps of cells on the ground to simple animals. How did that happen? That is mind-boggling.

As it happens, the phenomenon you describe (though a great deal of life was aquatic, so "clumps of cells on the ground" is probably not a good description) is thought to have occurred in the space of around 80 million years, from 580-500mya (the "Cambrian Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion)"). A significant development in the intervening period is the formation of the ozone layer. Another that is thought to have occurred is a global glaciation event. Either, or both, may have contributed to this. I'm not personally that familiar with the Cambrian Explosion to say much on it, though the Wikipedia entry looks like it's worth perusing.

They are still dogs though. That's the point. We accept this already. We know small changes can even form a new species of dog that can't mate with the other dogs.

But the main point is that they are still dogs. This is not empirical evidence of macroevolution.

It sounds like we need to address a misconception here.

We need to be clear about what evolution says, and - importantly - what it does not say. Evolution is descent with modification by means of natural selection.

Note the key word there: descent. This is really important, because what this means, and what evolution actually says, is that one can never escape one's ancestry. And biological classification of animals is all about ancestry.

There was once a BBC Television comedy series called "Red Dwarf", in which one of the members of the crew is a member of Felis sapiens, a humaniform species descended from domestic cats. After the other crew members, Rimmer and Lister, discover The Cat, Lister asks Holly for an explanation of what they have just seen:

Lister: Holly, what was that?
Holly: During the radioactive crisis, Dave, your cat and her kittens were safely sealed in the hold; and they've been breeding there for three million years, and have evolved into the life-form you just saw in the corridor.
Lister: I don't get it.
Holly: Well, you know how mankind evolved from apes...
Lister: Yeah, I know that.
Holly: He evolved from cats. His ancestors were cats; he's descended from cats; he is a cat.

What this means is that of course any descendant of a dog will still be a dog - just as it will still be a member of the order "flesh-eaters" (carnivora), and it will still be a mammal, a therapsid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida), a chordate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate), an animal and a eukaryotic life-form.

That's definitional. It's a matter of cladistics, and of ancestry - which, in biology, happen to be pretty much the exact same thing. For any descendant of a dog not to be a dog would be a contradiction in terms.

If you think "macroevolution" entails the descendants of dogs one day being something other than dogs, then your notion of "macroevolution" isn't anything to do with evolution at all. They can no more not be dogs, than can any descendants you may have not have you as an ancestor. You would not say "prove to me that 2 = 9, or I will not accept mathematics", would you?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 04, 2013, 08:50:09 PM
You would not say "prove to me that 2 = 9, or I will not accept mathematics", would you?

I mentioned the Cambrian explosion. Not so much an explosion really. Millions of years.

Too late with the maths. He already said zero was not a number.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 04, 2013, 10:06:33 PM
Christians: Do you believe in Creation? Are you skeptical of evolution? Please visit the following link by a Phd biologist who is also a Christian!

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2/featured (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2/featured)


SAMPLE VIDEO BY A CHRISTIAN BIOLOGIST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c)


Evolution is a FACT. It is a done deal and there is simply no debate going on in the professional field about it (just like the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, and earth being round).
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
If you think "macroevolution" entails the descendants of dogs one day being something other than dogs, then your notion of "macroevolution" isn't anything to do with evolution at all. They can no more not be dogs, than can any descendants you may have not have you as an ancestor. You would not say "prove to me that 2 = 9, or I will not accept mathematics", would you?

Yes, that's the problem with evolution. Dogs will always have dog descendants. This would mean other species would not be able to form. How would they?

Dogs will always have dogs
Cats will always have cats
Flies will always have flies

This doesn't explain how dogs, cats, and flies individually formed.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 04, 2013, 11:23:52 PM
"Dog" is just a nickname of a specific subset of the species lupis, specificly Lupis Familiaris, scientifically "Dog" has no meaning.
Same with cat.

And no one has ever stated that evolution REQUIRES one species to give birth to a completely different species, in fact it says quite the opposite.

EDIT:
In order to understand how they formed, you have to have a strong understanding about how speciation occurs. It's not as clear cut as Creationists insist.

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 11:25:11 PM
There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.
Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet.
It belongs in the religious category.

If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 04, 2013, 11:27:49 PM
There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.
Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet.
It belongs in the religious category.


No, just no, It's a hypothesis, and scientists are working on understanding the possible causes of abiogenesis, there are other alternatives as well, such as Panspermia.

Quote
If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.
Non-sequitar, you can't assert one thing in place of another, also occam's razor cuts out a god, why introduce something complex to as an explanation, it just begs the question of "Where did god come from", and asserting "god is eternal" explains everything by explaining nothing.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 11:28:54 PM
"Dog" is just a nickname of a specific subset of the species lupis, specificly Lupis Familiaris, scientifically "Dog" has no meaning.
Same with cat.

And no one has ever stated that evolution REQUIRES one species to give birth to a completely different species, in fact it says quite the opposite.

EDIT:
In order to understand how they formed, you have to have a strong understanding about how speciation occurs. It's not as clear cut as Creationists insist.

If one species can't form from another one, then how do species form? Speciation can only occur within the already existing species.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 04, 2013, 11:30:17 PM
No, just no, It's a hypothesis, and scientists are working on understanding the possible causes of abiogenesis, there are other alternatives as well, such as Panspermia.

which is based on nothing but imagining.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 04, 2013, 11:31:12 PM
No, just no, It's a hypothesis, and scientists are working on understanding the possible causes of abiogenesis, there are other alternatives as well, such as Panspermia.

which is based on nothing but imagining.

Hypotheses have to come from somewhere, you don't pull it out of a goldfish's ass.

EDIT:
Also, you still haven't fulfilled the obligations of the OP.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 04, 2013, 11:36:52 PM
"Dog" is just a nickname of a specific subset of the species lupis, specificly Lupis Familiaris, scientifically "Dog" has no meaning.
Same with cat.

And no one has ever stated that evolution REQUIRES one species to give birth to a completely different species, in fact it says quite the opposite.

EDIT:
In order to understand how they formed, you have to have a strong understanding about how speciation occurs. It's not as clear cut as Creationists insist.

If one species can't form from another one, then how do species form? Speciation can only occur within the already existing species.

If two groups of a species are separated long enough for them to be too different to mate with each other THAT is speciation.
The moment two animals are not chemically inter-fertile, you have speciation, you can see this demonstrated quite well in a phenomenon called "Ring-Species"
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 04, 2013, 11:42:26 PM
Dogs will always have dogs
Cats will always have cats
Flies will always have flies

So you don't believe there are different species of dog, cat, or fly?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 04, 2013, 11:46:14 PM
(http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/Rainbow_Gradients_Wallpaper_x5ows.jpg)
^ this seems to be what Creationists think evolution is.
when in reality it's more like this:
(https://d2o0t5hpnwv4c1.cloudfront.net/964_canvas3/12.jpg)

A smooth transition from one species into another, the only reason we see distinct species now is because there has been more than enough time for each group of animal to diverge in their own ways to fulfill certain habitat requirements.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 04, 2013, 11:50:34 PM
but at the same time, science is man made and based on nothing but the minds of men. Since men are known to make mistakes a lot, it's ludicrous to put your eggs in the science basket.

is it not possible that a man made system could be completely wrong?

You say that, but have no problems putting all your eggs in the religion basket, even though that is completely man-made.

No religion has ever come from the minds of men. Not one.
So they are all true and real?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 04, 2013, 11:52:44 PM
There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.
Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet.
It belongs in the religious category.

If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.
who here has ever absolutely said there can't be god(s)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:00:26 AM
No, just no, It's a hypothesis, and scientists are working on understanding the possible causes of abiogenesis, there are other alternatives as well, such as Panspermia.

which is based on nothing but imagining.

Hypotheses have to come from somewhere, you don't pull it out of a goldfish's ass.

EDIT:
Also, you still haven't fulfilled the obligations of the OP.

I have fulfilled the obligations. I guess me using a definition that was given by the university of berkeley is not good enough. Then, I must assume that you guys have a different definition of evolution, and disagree with the professors at berkeley.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:02:14 AM
Dogs will always have dogs
Cats will always have cats
Flies will always have flies

So you don't
believe there are different species of dog, cat, or fly?

I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 05, 2013, 12:03:12 AM
What post # is it? Where you explain the theory?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:04:07 AM
So they are all true and real?

Derail.

No, only Christianity is real. The rest are from the minds of demons influencing humans.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:05:19 AM
What post # is it? Where you explain the theory?

#32.

Long time ago.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 05, 2013, 12:05:46 AM
So they are all true and real?

Derail.

No, only Christianity is real. The rest are from the minds of demons influencing humans.

The only one who has derailed this topic is you.
Fulfill the obligations of the OP (which you haven't as yet), and get back on topic.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 05, 2013, 12:06:22 AM
So they are all true and real?

Derail.

No, only Christianity is real. The rest are from the minds of demons influencing humans.
you brought it up,can you provide proof Christianity is not demon born,like the "others"?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 05, 2013, 12:06:43 AM
What post # is it? Where you explain the theory?

#32.

Long time ago.

you mean that rather pathetic attempt to redefine it so you seem correct?
Yeah no, not going to fly buddy.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:06:51 AM
There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.
Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet.
It belongs in the religious category.

If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.


And you can't 'rule in God' either. You have to wait for evidence and admit ignorance. Otherwise you are just practicing credulity. Btw, abiogenesis is NOT religion. It is a scientific hypothesis.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 05, 2013, 12:07:45 AM
We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet.
It belongs in the religious category.
This is just plain silly.  Because it's a hypothesis, it must be religious?  No, it belongs in the "we don't have enough evidence, so we should keep looking for more" category.

Quote from: skeptic54768
If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.
Which is irrelevant.  You can't rule anything out without evidence - but that doesn't mean that every conceivable explanation is equally probable.  And given the problems with "God did it", it can hardly be considered probable at this point.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 05, 2013, 12:08:42 AM
I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.

Fruit flies, house flies, and mosquitoes, are all flies.  Quite a bit of difference there, wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 05, 2013, 12:10:41 AM
I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.

Fruit flies, house flies, and mosquitoes, are all flies.  Quite a bit of difference there, wouldn't you say?
he wants to know why the fruit fly has yet to change into something......maybe because the food source they use for food and breeding (fruit) is plentiful?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:12:13 AM
So they are all true and real?

Derail.

No, only Christianity is real. The rest are from the minds of demons influencing humans.


Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:13:08 AM
I do believe that. They are still dogs, cats, and flys though. I already made this point. Fruit fly speciation just produces different fruit flys. They don't produce anything else. This does not explain how species that are not fruit flys end up forming.

Fruit flies, house flies, and mosquitoes, are all flies.  Quite a bit of difference there, wouldn't you say?

Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.

nobody has yet to explain how mosquitos became mosquitos and how fruit flys became fruit flys.

It's simple if you believe in God....not so much when you don't.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 05, 2013, 12:14:28 AM
There isn't really a body of evidence for abiogenesis the way there is for evolution.
Abiogenesis is more properly a hypothesis rather than a theory like evolution.

We know that. That's why it can't be considered science yet.
It belongs in the religious category.

If nobody knows how life started, you can't rule out God.

It seems that you're unfamiliar with what the word hypothesis means.  This doesn't overly surprise me given that you've chosen to also ignore what the word evolution means.

You should probably be aware that once a hypothesis is formed the next step is to test that hypothesis. 
That a topic is a hypothesis does not automatically put in a religious category, rather it's impossible for a religion to get past the hypothesis stage since it appears to be impossible to actually test for the presence of god, whereas one CAN test for things like protein strands and how they react to specific stimuli.

Feel free to 'rule in' god as soon as you can come up with a way of proving that it exists.

What you don't seem to understand is that simply complaining about parts of a theory that you don't like does nothing to advance your own ideas.  If you don't like the idea of evolution.. that's ok.  Heck even if you could, against the overwhelming mountain of evidence in it's favor find a way to show that it doesn't actually work the way we think it does, that still wouldn't advance your ideas as a replacement.

What you need to do is advance your own ideas and back them with solid research and facts.  Religion can't do that where deities are concerned. 

By the way, you haven't actually managed to even meet the fairly simple challenge proposed by the OP post yet.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:15:03 AM
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.

I see. So you can demonstrate abiogenesis without resorting to circular reasoning? (ie. Life is here, so abiogenesis must have happened)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:15:35 AM

I have fulfilled the obligations. I guess me using a definition that was given by the university of berkeley is not good enough. Then, I must assume that you guys have a different definition of evolution, and disagree with the professors at berkeley.

Now you're just being an ass about the OP b/c you don't want to do the homework to fulfill requirement #1. And I gave you a YouTube channel of a Christian who can help you with this fulfillment. Go there and then come back and report what exactly evolution is and what it's evidences are (from a Christian source!). GO!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 05, 2013, 12:16:59 AM
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:17:21 AM
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.

I see. So you can demonstrate abiogenesis without resorting to circular reasoning? (ie. Life is here, so abiogenesis must have happened)

Since when did I make a positive statement regrading the origin of life? Have you seen me do that? NOPE! Unlike you, I don't pretend to know things I don't know. It's called admitting when you don't have the facts in (which for some odd reason you seem unwilling to do). Sorry, the argument from ignorance fallacy still fails - regardless of how many times you want to try it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:18:41 AM

I have fulfilled the obligations. I guess me using a definition that was given by the university of berkeley is not good enough. Then, I must assume that you guys have a different definition of evolution, and disagree with the professors at berkeley.


Now you're just being an ass about the OP b/c you don't want to do the homework to fulfill requirement #1. And I gave you a YouTube channel of a Christian who can help you with this fulfillment. Go there and then come back and report what exactly evolution is and what it's evidences are (from a Christian source!). GO!

OK fine. I will use the wikipedia definition:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

if that definition is wrong, please feel free to edit the wikipedia page. Lots of people have been duped.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 05, 2013, 12:18:45 AM
Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.

They are descended from common stock.  Just like you wouldn't expect a poodle to have come from a bull mastiff, but instead that they come from common stock.  They are all dogs, just as the insects I mentioned are all flies.

Why are you deliberately trying not to understand what people say?

nobody has yet to explain how mosquitos became mosquitos and how fruit flys became fruit flys.

Common ancestor.  Easy explantion, and makes sense in light of their common traits.

It's simple if you believe in God....not so much when you don't.

Explaining why my car engine pulses wierdly would be far simpler if I just concluded "God makes it do that".  I wonder why my Christian mechanic doesn't do that...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 05, 2013, 12:19:43 AM
Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.
That is one of the biggest, most obvious strawmen I've seen in a while, he was giving examples of FLIES, not Fruit Flies.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:20:07 AM
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose

That does not answer the question.

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy to me.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 05, 2013, 12:20:36 AM
Mosquitoes were formed from fruit flys? That would be an example that proves macroevolution.
That is one of the biggest, most obvious strawmen I've seen in a while, he was giving examples of FLIES, not Fruit Flies.

Indeed.  Honesty is a sin within Skeptic's brand of Christianity.  Fortunately, not all Christians follow his example; some have integrity.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 05, 2013, 12:21:27 AM
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose

That does not answer the question.

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy to me.
No I was asking you its purpose
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 05, 2013, 12:21:44 AM
What is a mosquito's purpose? For God to create it,spread disease,to kill heathens and believers alike? You could say coyotes had a purpose,wolves,until man got in their way,but mosquito's .....no purpose

That does not answer the question.

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy to me.
That was kind of the point, by your logic every creature has a purpose, what is a mosquitoes purpose?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:23:15 AM

OK fine. I will use the wikipedia definition:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

if that definition is wrong, please feel free to edit the wikipedia page. Lots of people have been duped.

Go read the OP again, b/c you STILL are refusing to meet it's challenge in full and I've provided a method for you to do that. Go visit the YouTube link here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2)

Educate yourself (which is part of the requirement of the OP) and only THEN, meet the challenge.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:23:56 AM

Since when did I make a positive statement regrading the origin of life? Have you seen me do that? NOPE!
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know things I don't know. It's called admitting when you don't have the facts in (which for some odd reason you seem unwilling to do). Sorry, the argument from ignorance fallacy still fails - regardless of how many times you want to try it.

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 05, 2013, 12:25:47 AM

Since when did I make a positive statement regrading the origin of life? Have you seen me do that? NOPE!
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know things I don't know. It's called admitting when you don't have the facts in (which for some odd reason you seem unwilling to do). Sorry, the argument from ignorance fallacy still fails - regardless of how many times you want to try it.

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?
This is a big non-sequitar, what does his non-belief in deities have to do with the price of tea in china?

EDIT:
On top of that occam's razor is to blame for cutting out your god, not median. Asserting a complex being as the "simple" explanation explains absolutely nothing and only begs the question, "where did god come from?", and "what created god?" ad-infinitum
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 05, 2013, 12:28:07 AM
Skep, when someone asks a question or makes a point about your views or your position, it's not immediately relevant what their views or their position is.  It might be something worth talking about in the broader discussion, but it doesn't address what's actually being said.

You do this a lot, and it reflects poorly on your point of view.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:30:21 AM

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?

Bearing false witness is a sin in your religion, isn't it? You are committing it right now. By deliberately misrepresenting my position you are effectively LYING about what I have stated!!!!!! I made NO positive statement about a God or the origin of life and I did NOT say, "It's not God" (just like I did NOT say, "It's not Unicorns!"). You made the positive statement that it is and we are asking you to defend that position. I find your tactics extremely dishonest as you make no attempt to actually understand my position and (like always) just ASSUME. You are a pure asshole for trying to put words in my mouth (and a complete hypocrite all the way around). I do not, and have not, pretended (like you) to know exactly how life got here. I've simply said we do not know (including you). STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION.


Just because you are gullible doesn't mean others around you are by default.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 05, 2013, 12:32:55 AM
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise there is simply no reason to accept your claims. You just have delusion like all other religions.


I've been out of the loop for a while, is it actually possible that nobody has covered the concept of falsifiability with him?
Abiogenesis can be falsified, 'god' cannot.


Here is a quick little page, with a nice primer on how it works.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/


Quote
.... For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory. In a critical sense, Popper's theory of demarcation is based upon his perception of the logical asymmetry which holds between verification and falsification: it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law. In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving’ a rule, conclusively refutes it....

...Thus Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood the most rigorous testing, for however long a period of time, that it has been verified; rather we should recognize that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration. and may be provisionally retained as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.

In the simplest of terms: science is rigorously trying to constantly prove itself wrong.  When it does, the existing theory is modified in favor of the new knowledge.  Religion, almost by definition cannot do this.


Where abiogenesis is concerned, we can come up with a hypothesis and test it.  (did it work: Yes/No.  What did we learn?)
Where 'god' is concerned we can't do this.



Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 05, 2013, 12:35:29 AM
#32.

Long time ago.
And as I said at the time, you are nitpicking.

Splitting hairs by trying to create a totally artificial distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', and then trying to claim that science supports the former and not the latter, is not reasonable.  It is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt on the affair so you can present your beliefs as an alternative without providing evidence for them.

You also never bothered addressing my point about the implications of speciation.  Specifically, how the divergence in a single species which that causes it to become separate species carries implications for the past development of existing species, and so on and so forth.

Evolution isn't about mosquitoes forming from fruit flies.  It's about both mosquitoes and fruit flies having diverged from their predecessor species, which diverged from their predecessor species, and so on.  It isn't about making a silk purse from a sow's ear, which is how you seem to be looking at it.

The species that would ultimately produce mosquitoes and fruit flies diverged a long time back - their closest relationship is the order Diptera.  What that actually means is that Diptera was a single population once, and it diverged into different species which had different traits.  Ultimately, through continued divergences, they became what we know of as fruit flies and mosquitoes.  But the point is, they're both Diptera - winged insects, and they both diverged off of that ancestor species.

You can trace speciation backwards as well as forward; pretending otherwise is dishonest.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 01:44:40 AM
#32.

Long time ago.
And as I said at the time, you are nitpicking.

Splitting hairs by trying to create a totally artificial distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', and then trying to claim that science supports the former and not the latter, is not reasonable.  It is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt on the affair so you can present your beliefs as an alternative without providing evidence for them.

You also never bothered addressing my point about the implications of speciation.  Specifically, how the divergence in a single species which that causes it to become separate species carries implications for the past development of existing species, and so on and so forth.

Evolution isn't about mosquitoes forming from fruit flies.  It's about both mosquitoes and fruit flies having diverged from their predecessor species, which diverged from their predecessor species, and so on.  It isn't about making a silk purse from a sow's ear, which is how you seem to be looking at it.

The species that would ultimately produce mosquitoes and fruit flies diverged a long time back - their closest relationship is the order Diptera.  What that actually means is that Diptera was a single population once, and it diverged into different species which had different traits.  Ultimately, through continued divergences, they became what we know of as fruit flies and mosquitoes.  But the point is, they're both Diptera - winged insects, and they both diverged off of that ancestor species.

You can trace speciation backwards as well as forward; pretending otherwise is dishonest.

I see.

So mosquitos and fruit flies have a common ancestor.
So how did other forms of life form?
Never get an elephant from mosquitos and fruit flies.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 01:47:43 AM

You did make a positive statement about it, median. You don't believe in God. This means you don't think God created life. Yet, you haven't shown how life even formed in the first place. So, it's illogical to say "I don't know" but at the same time say, "It's not God."

Imagine I take you to a building with no windows and a locked door. I ask, "What's behind the door?" You say, "I have no idea." This would be reasonable and understandable. To say, "I have no idea what's behind the door, but it's definitely not a cat," is illogical.

How would you know that it's not a cat behind the door?

Bearing false witness is a sin in your religion, isn't it? You are committing it right now. By deliberately misrepresenting my position you are effectively LYING about what I have stated!!!!!! I made NO positive statement about a God or the origin of life and I did NOT say, "It's not God" (just like I did NOT say, "It's not Unicorns!"). You made the positive statement that it is and we are asking you to defend that position. I find your tactics extremely dishonest as you make no attempt to actually understand my position and (like always) just ASSUME. You are a pure asshole for trying to put words in my mouth (and a complete hypocrite all the way around). I do not, and have not, pretended (like you) to know exactly how life got here. I've simply said we do not know (including you). STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION.


Just because you are gullible doesn't mean others around you are by default.

So to make a long story short, you believe that it is certainly possible that God could have created life?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 01:50:05 AM
That was kind of the point, by your logic every creature has a purpose, what is a mosquitoes purpose?

I'm not sure. Plenty of people believe that flies and mosquitos were created by Satan via gene splicing. This is certainly one possibility. Nasty creatures. Doesn't seem like something God would create.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Deus ex Machina on November 05, 2013, 02:46:27 AM
If you think "macroevolution" entails the descendants of dogs one day being something other than dogs, then your notion of "macroevolution" isn't anything to do with evolution at all. They can no more not be dogs, than can any descendants you may have not have you as an ancestor. You would not say "prove to me that 2 = 9, or I will not accept mathematics", would you?

Yes, that's the problem with evolution. Dogs will always have dog descendants. This would mean other species would not be able to form.

They already have! What you you think domesticated dogs, jackals, coyotes, dingoes and wolves are? They are all dogs ("dogs" are not a single species); but they're not all the same species, are they? Similarly, cougars, panthers, jaguars, lions, tigers, ocelots, lynxes, leopards, cheetahs, snow leopards, wildcats, sand cats and "domesticated" cats are all cats - but they are clearly not one species either.

"All descendants of dogs are dogs" and "all descendants of cats are cats" is precisely what we would expect of evolution, by the definition of what "dogs" and "cats" are. By the same token, "all descendants of mammals are mammals" and "all descendants of marsupials are marsupials" are also true.

That is not a problem for evolution: it is, in fact, precisely what we would expect if it were true: one can never escape one's ancestry. However, that does not mean that population groups cannot bifurcate into distinct population groups that become reproductively isolated and develop along different lines, even with radically different appearances and ecological niches.

It's not a problem for evolution, but a problem with your own understanding. I suspect that here you're stuck on a definition of "species" you have in your head that isn't the same as the biological one. You also appear to think that "dogs will always be dogs" and "dogs can speciate" are mutually exclusive propositions when they are not. Perhaps that's a good place to start?

Quote
This doesn't explain how dogs, cats, and flies individually formed.

As it happens, we can tell from genetics, anatomy and the fossil record somewhat of the lineage of both dogs and cats. But that's a separate question - let's not get ahead of ourselves... do you understand why "all descendants of dogs are dogs" is precisely what is expected if evolution is true, and therefore, not a "problem" for it?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 05, 2013, 02:47:34 AM
That was kind of the point, by your logic every creature has a purpose, what is a mosquitoes purpose?

I'm not sure. Plenty of people believe that flies and mosquitos were created by Satan via gene splicing. This is certainly one possibility. Nasty creatures. Doesn't seem like something God would create.

But but but...I thought Biblegod  created everything?

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 05, 2013, 02:49:19 AM
Deus,

No love for foxes? Dogs hunting dogs.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 05, 2013, 02:51:24 AM
But but but...I thought Biblegod  created everything?

-Nam

Biblegod created everything--except for the icky stuff.  That's all Satan's doing.  It says so in the bible, uh, somewhere.  There's over 1,000 pages in that thing, there must be something about it...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Ataraxia on November 05, 2013, 02:52:44 AM
#32.

Long time ago.
And as I said at the time, you are nitpicking.

Splitting hairs by trying to create a totally artificial distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', and then trying to claim that science supports the former and not the latter, is not reasonable.  It is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt on the affair so you can present your beliefs as an alternative without providing evidence for them.

You also never bothered addressing my point about the implications of speciation.  Specifically, how the divergence in a single species which that causes it to become separate species carries implications for the past development of existing species, and so on and so forth.

Evolution isn't about mosquitoes forming from fruit flies.  It's about both mosquitoes and fruit flies having diverged from their predecessor species, which diverged from their predecessor species, and so on.  It isn't about making a silk purse from a sow's ear, which is how you seem to be looking at it.

The species that would ultimately produce mosquitoes and fruit flies diverged a long time back - their closest relationship is the order Diptera.  What that actually means is that Diptera was a single population once, and it diverged into different species which had different traits.  Ultimately, through continued divergences, they became what we know of as fruit flies and mosquitoes.  But the point is, they're both Diptera - winged insects, and they both diverged off of that ancestor species.

You can trace speciation backwards as well as forward; pretending otherwise is dishonest.

I see.

So mosquitos and fruit flies have a common ancestor.
So how did other forms of life form?
Never get an elephant from mosquitos and fruit flies.

You're a Poe, right?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 05, 2013, 02:55:57 AM
But but but...I thought Biblegod  created everything?

-Nam

Biblegod created everything--except for the icky stuff.  That's all Satan's doing.  It says so in the bible, uh, somewhere.  There's over 1,000 pages in that thing, there must be something about it...

None that I have read. However, Colossians 1:16 says "god created everything". But maybe that's wrong. Skeptic has shown me the icky, and I am no longer blind and unsanitary.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Deus ex Machina on November 05, 2013, 02:56:15 AM
Deus,

No love for foxes? Dogs hunting dogs.

-Nam

IIRC, foxes are canids, "dog-like", as opposed to "true dogs" (Gen. Canis). ICBW, though.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 05, 2013, 03:29:34 AM
Deus,

No love for foxes? Dogs hunting dogs.

-Nam

IIRC, foxes are canids, "dog-like", as opposed to "true dogs" (Gen. Canis). ICBW, though.

Don't be a buzzkill.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Illuminatus99 on November 05, 2013, 07:52:49 AM
It's all about common ancestry. bears share a common ancestor with weasels, hyaenas are distant cousins of cats, all rodents share a common ancestor.

You can trace every species alive today through dna and fossils back to older groups. Some mammal carnivore in the past gave rise to both cats and dogs.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 05, 2013, 07:55:57 AM
And whales are closely related to hippos. Do they look similar?

Humans are closely related to bonobos and chimps. The fusion of the chromosomes proves this relationship and evolution without a doubt. Humans even have the same inherited unused DNA and the same viral infected implants in the DNA.

There is video on YouTube comparing the chromosome structure of humans and chimps which will prove this.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Mrjason on November 05, 2013, 08:01:35 AM
pick the human

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html (http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 05, 2013, 08:40:39 AM
I'm not sure. Plenty of people believe that flies and mosquitos were created by Satan via gene splicing. This is certainly one possibility. Nasty creatures. Doesn't seem like something God would create.

QFTS       (quoted for total shit)

They are actually no more horrid than spiders, who hang around in a web, injecting venom into helpless small creatures, so that they dissolve internally.

I found this whole nature documentary channel, for Skeptic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jz0JcQYtqo

(It's pretty funny.. guy impersonating Morgan Freeman)


Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 05, 2013, 11:03:50 AM
So to make a long story short, you believe that it is certainly possible that God could have created life?

You are conflating evolution with creation.  Completely different.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 05, 2013, 11:13:08 AM
I see.

So mosquitos and fruit flies have a common ancestor.
Yep.

Quote from: skeptic54768
So how did other forms of life form?
Never get an elephant from mosquitos and fruit flies.
Nobody here is saying that an elephant will 'evolve' from a fly.

The common ancestor of mammals and insects is much further back than the common ancestor of mosquitoes and fruit flies.  Mammals are chordates (internal bones and tails), whereas insects are arthropods (external bones/exoskeletons and segmented legs).  That means the last common ancestor of insects and mammals probably did not have bones at all (and thus were aquatic), and the differences in evolution caused one group to develop internal bones while the other group developed a hard external shell.  Indeed, you can see just this distinction in sea animals - you have bony fish with tails, such as carp, tuna, etc, and you have shellfish with segmented legs, such as lobsters, crabs, etc, which probably remained the closest in form to the original chordates and arthropods, even though they have evolved from the original divergence as well.

This is exactly the sort of divergence that evolution predicts - that very different organisms will still share general traits with each other based on how far back they diverged.  Mammals (including humans) diverged from chordates, so we share traits with other descendants of chordates - for example, even though humans don't have tails, we still possess the genes for tails, and the bone structure needed to support a tail.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 11:24:03 AM
pick the human

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html (http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html)

Or it means there is a common designer.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 11:32:55 AM

So to make a long story short, you believe that it is certainly possible that God could have created life?

There are lots of things that are possible (such as Directed Panspermia) but just b/c something is possible does not mean whatsoever that it is likely to have occurred. You need actual evidence and a testable hypothesis - not just your assumptions and intuition. Thus far, I have seen no definition of the term "God" that is coherent or makes any sense whatsoever. If you think you can meet that challenge go for it (many have tried and many have failed). Is a Spinoza type "God" logically possible (like Unicorns are logically possible)? Sure. But possible does not equal probable or likely. The Lock Ness Monster is possible. Where is the evidence?

Now, if we are talking about the Christian God then the answer is no. That man-made deity (like the others) is logically contradictory (like trying to talk about a square circle) and could not have done anything b/c it's quite clear that deity does not exist. Logically contradictory 'things' (i.e. - all-knowing/all-powerful but cannot change the future or lie) do not and cannot exist (again just like cube spheres do not exist or a whole integer between 5 and 6 does not exist). Things with mutually-exclusive attributes are not real. If you are trying to talk about some other 'God' creating everything we see then prove it. Provide evidence for your "designer" and go for the Nobel Prize. Won't do it? That's b/c you have no evidence of it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Mrjason on November 05, 2013, 11:34:59 AM
pick the human

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html (http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html)

Or it means there is a common designer.

Or it means that there is a common ancestor. Supporting evolution.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 11:36:17 AM
pick the human

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html (http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html)

Or it means there is a common designer.


Ok Kent Hovind wannabe. Hovind's already been refuted many times over:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGfhAevhy_0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGfhAevhy_0)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 05, 2013, 11:40:01 AM
Or it means there is a common designer.
Who acted in exactly the way we expect from natural evolution, and who left no signs whatsoever of their 'design'.  Indeed, who did things that make no sense in terms of design, but make perfect sense in terms of evolution.

Honestly, 'God' doesn't explain how life developed on Earth nearly as well as evolution does, and never will.  There is just too much evidence that contradicts assertions of design, and too little (in fact, virtually none) that supports those assertions.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 11:42:35 AM
Or it means there is a common designer.
Who acted in exactly the way we expect from natural evolution, and who left no signs whatsoever of their 'design'.  Indeed, who did things that make no sense in terms of design, but make perfect sense in terms of evolution.

Honestly, 'God' doesn't explain how life developed on Earth nearly as well as evolution does, and never will.  There is just too much evidence that contradicts assertions of design, and too little (in fact, virtually none) that supports those assertions.

And lots of Christians accept evolution! Stop fighting it and go get educated on the subject. Do some homework, catch up.

CLICK HERE: http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:00:35 PM
Or it means there is a common designer.
Who acted in exactly the way we expect from natural evolution, and who left no signs whatsoever of their 'design'.  Indeed, who did things that make no sense in terms of design, but make perfect sense in terms of evolution.

Honestly, 'God' doesn't explain how life developed on Earth nearly as well as evolution does, and never will.  There is just too much evidence that contradicts assertions of design, and too little (in fact, virtually none) that supports those assertions.

The human body is extraordinarily designed.

Our skin heals itself when you get cut.
We cough when something obstructs our airway so we don't die from it.
Poop comes out instead of staying inside of us until we blow up.
Our eyes water when dust gets into it to wash it out.

Lots of things that couldn't have "just happened" on their own.
These things all indicate purposeful design.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:07:56 PM
Or it means there is a common designer.
Who acted in exactly the way we expect from natural evolution, and who left no signs whatsoever of their 'design'.  Indeed, who did things that make no sense in terms of design, but make perfect sense in terms of evolution.

Honestly, 'God' doesn't explain how life developed on Earth nearly as well as evolution does, and never will.  There is just too much evidence that contradicts assertions of design, and too little (in fact, virtually none) that supports those assertions.

And lots of Christians accept evolution! Stop fighting it and go get educated on the subject. Do some homework, catch up.

CLICK HERE: http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2)

It's not my fault that certain false Christians ignore the Bible and try to mold their beliefs to the world around them.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:15:18 PM

It's not my fault that certain false Christians ignore the Bible and try to mold their beliefs to the world around them.


And they would say the same thing about you, that YOU are ignoring the bible and trying to makeup YOUR own version of Christian doctrine to suite YOUR wants and personal desires. Just because YOU happen to have a personal interpretation of that book doesn't make you right by default. You haven't studied your Christian history, have you? Early Christians could not agree on doctrine and that is b/c the bible contradicts itself and can be interpreted multiple ways. You are no exception.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 05, 2013, 12:16:50 PM
The human body is extraordinarily designed.
Oh, please.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Our skin heals itself when you get cut.
A process which takes minutes or hours depending on the severity of the cut and in severe cases needs something binding or compressing the wound to keep the injury from bleeding out.  Not to mention the little matter that other injuries, such as lost limbs, don't heal themselves - at best, they seal over.

Quote from: skeptic54768
We cough when something obstructs our airway so we don't die from it.
Which of course explains the thousands of people per year who die from choking.  Not to mention the little matter that air goes through the same passage that food goes through, which is what allows people to die from choking in the first place.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Poop comes out instead of staying inside of us until we blow up.
Which is such a bad example that I don't have to even refute it.  Think it through - if organisms did not have a way to excrete waste, they could not possibly survive long enough to reproduce and thus would have wiped themselves out long ago.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Our eyes water when dust gets into it to wash it out.
Again, an organism that evolved sensory organs would have to have a way to make sure those organs continued working properly, or else they would quickly turn themselves into a disadvantage.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Lots of things that couldn't have "just happened" on their own.
Not only could they have happened on their own, all the evidence points to them being natural adaptations which enhanced the ability to survive.

Quote from: skeptic54768
These things all indicate purposeful design.
Design which takes minor injuries into account but can't cope with major ones very well, if at all; design which provides a way to dislodge objects which would cause someone to choke to death while using the same tube for air and food, making it much more likely for someone to get an object caught in their lungs which causes them to choke in the first place; design which puts the endpoints of the excretion system practically right next to the reproductive system, causing all sorts of problems.

Some design!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:20:45 PM

It's not my fault that certain false Christians ignore the Bible and try to mold their beliefs to the world around them.


And they would say the same thing about you, that YOU are ignoring the bible and trying to makeup YOUR own version of Christian doctrine to suite YOUR wants and personal desires. Just because YOU happen to have a personal interpretation of that book doesn't make you right by default. You haven't studied your Christian history, have you? Early Christians could not agree on doctrine and that is b/c the bible contradicts itself and can be interpreted multiple ways. You are no exception.

No, it's common sense. Think of Genesis. The word "day" does not mean millions of years. That is nonsense. Otherwise when it says in Joshua that God stopped the sun for a day, they would also have to agree that God stopped the sun for millions of years instead of 24 hours.

NONSENSICAL! It's not my fault false Christians exist.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:22:54 PM

The human body is extraordinarily designed.

Our skin heals itself when you get cut.
We cough when something obstructs our airway so we don't die from it.
Poop comes out instead of staying inside of us until we blow up.
Our eyes water when dust gets into it to wash it out.

Lots of things that couldn't have "just happened" on their own.
These things all indicate purposeful design.

No, they do not "indicate" design. You do not get to side-step the scientific process just b/c you WANT your theology to win out. Just looking at stuff and saying it looks designed (b/c you can't imagine how it could not be) is a logical fallacy. It is called The Argument From Incredulity. Look it up. Your argument is invalid.

Nature does not tell us how it got here until we investigate. You need observation/data collection, hypothesis, testing (attempts of falsification - numerous), continued study and research, peer review, and more. Sorry, you don't get to bypass the process of science. If you think a designer did it then prove it - b/c all you have right now is a mere assertion based upon a logical fallacy, and that's not science. 
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 05, 2013, 12:24:46 PM

It's not my fault that certain false Christians ignore the Bible and try to mold their beliefs to the world around them.


And they would say the same thing about you, that YOU are ignoring the bible and trying to makeup YOUR own version of Christian doctrine to suite YOUR wants and personal desires. Just because YOU happen to have a personal interpretation of that book doesn't make you right by default. You haven't studied your Christian history, have you? Early Christians could not agree on doctrine and that is b/c the bible contradicts itself and can be interpreted multiple ways. You are no exception.

No, it's common sense. Think of Genesis. The word "day" does not mean millions of years. That is nonsense. Otherwise when it says in Joshua that God stopped the sun for a day, they would also have to agree that God stopped the sun for millions of years instead of 24 hours.

NONSENSICAL! It's not my fault false Christians exist.

Thinking of Genesis, god supposedly created everything from water. Genesis is wrong.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 12:28:44 PM

No, it's common sense. Think of Genesis. The word "day" does not mean millions of years. That is nonsense. Otherwise when it says in Joshua that God stopped the sun for a day, they would also have to agree that God stopped the sun for millions of years instead of 24 hours.

NONSENSICAL! It's not my fault false Christians exist.

"Nonsensical" to you b/c you assumed your theology. This is yet another example of you ASSUMING your interpretation (theology) is the correct one in advance. Sorry, you can't assume your interpretation in advance and you don't' get to be correct by default, especially when observations of the natural world contradict your theology. As others have noted, you are practicing confirmation bias - starting with your conclusion (as you admitted elsewhere) and then trying to work backwards by trying to twist every fact to fit your assumption. That is anti-science. It's dishonest and shows you don't really care about truth (only defending your presupposition).

You also seem to have no problem and no remorse for Bearing False Witness, by deliberately misrepresenting other people's positions. Hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 05, 2013, 12:33:22 PM

No, it's common sense. Think of Genesis. The word "day" does not mean millions of years. That is nonsense. Otherwise when it says in Joshua that God stopped the sun for a day, they would also have to agree that God stopped the sun for millions of years instead of 24 hours.

NONSENSICAL! It's not my fault false Christians exist.

"Nonsensical" to you b/c you assumed your theology. This is yet another example of you ASSUMING your interpretation (theology) is the correct one in advance. Sorry, you can't assume your interpretation in advance and you don't' get to be correct by default, especially when observations of the natural world contradict your theology. As others have noted, you are practicing confirmation bias - starting with your conclusion (as you admitted elsewhere) and then trying to work backwards by trying to twist every fact to fit your assumption. That is anti-science. It's dishonest and shows you don't really care about truth (only defending your presupposition).

You also seem to have no problem and no remorse for Bearing False Witness, by deliberately misrepresenting other people's positions. Hypocrisy.

So then those "Christians" would agree that God stopped the sun for millions of years in Joshua?

You can't use "Millions of years" for Genesis and then "24 hours" for joshua. THAT is called "molding the beliefs." I am not doing that.

To quote someone who I can't remember:

"If God can not be taken literally when He speaks of the rising of the Sun, then how can God be taken literally when He speaks of the rising of the Son?"
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 05, 2013, 01:04:27 PM
A better question is, when 'God' got so much wrong to begin with, how can you trust anything he said at all?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 05, 2013, 01:40:11 PM

So then those "Christians" would agree that God stopped the sun for millions of years in Joshua?

You can't use "Millions of years" for Genesis and then "24 hours" for joshua. THAT is called "molding the beliefs." I am not doing that.

To quote someone who I can't remember:

"If God can not be taken literally when He speaks of the rising of the Sun, then how can God be taken literally when He speaks of the rising of the Son?"

Have you studied Hugh Ross? I don't care what your interpretation is b/c there is always another one and there is no agreement or consistency. You do know that the bible was not written in English, don't you? Both the Hebrew and the Greek languages have many uses for terms. Your opponents will say, "Context! Context!" Except the problem is no one can agree on what the actual "context" is and YOU are practicing Confirmation Bias. You are trying to bend, squeeze, squash, and twish every bit of data into a mold that fits what you already assumed (both your theology and belief). It's called "Any which way but loose!" But that is intellectual dishonesty. If the bible shows error, self contradiction or false statements you can't allow that, b/c it would mean you would have to change your view (which is anti-science and anti-honesty btw). So instead you hold that assumption with a tight fist, in spite of all evidence or sound reasoning to the contrary. Dishonesty.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 05, 2013, 02:15:45 PM
So then those "Christians" would agree that God stopped the sun for millions of years in Joshua?

You can't use "Millions of years" for Genesis and then "24 hours" for joshua. THAT is called "molding the beliefs." I am not doing that.

To quote someone who I can't remember:

"If God can not be taken literally when He speaks of the rising of the Sun, then how can God be taken literally when He speaks of the rising of the Son?"

Ah, so you're a literalist.  Yet, I've heard from other christians that certain parts of the bible are metaphorical.  Why should I take your words over theirs?  They're christians, just like you, and they believe they're interpreting the bible correctly, just like you.


Wait, let me guess; demons?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 05, 2013, 09:19:10 PM
Most Christians used to believe some version of this: The world was made just as it said in the bible in 6 literal 24-hour days. God made all the animals and then the first man and the the first woman. All plants and animals were exactly as we see them today. Nothing went extinct, because god made everything perfect.

When I was a JW kid back in the 1960's we were told that there was no such thing as evolution. Period. None of this halfway namby-pamby micro vs macro sh!t. There were no dinosaurs.  None of this humans and dinos hung out together crap. Humans are not related to other primates. None of this intelligent design nonsense.

What about the fossils in museums? Museums are full of lies. Fossils were put there by demons to test our faith. Geology and astronomy have to be interpreted only in the light of bible truth. Anything else is worldly and evil-- made up by demons and inserted into the heads of scientists.

It amuses me (and gives me hope) to see how religious people nowadays adapt and accommodate to scientific discoveries that seem to challenge their theology. Even JW's now say that there were dinosaurs-- see how different this is from what we were taught back in the day...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_jehovah's_witnesses_attitude_about_dinosaurs

First, when the discovery is new, there is the flat out denial of the evidence--it's a complete and total lie, thought up by evil people in league with the devil, people who want to destroy religion and deny god:

Disease is caused by invisible animals called germs? That is the craziest thing we ever heard. It says quite clearly in the word of god that demons cause illness, so the only way to combat it is to pray to god to take away the demons! Anyone who promotes this so-called germ theory will be banned from polite company and maybe even burned at the stake.....

Second, when the discovery has gathered so much evidence that it is foolish to deny its existence, accept a part that is the least threatening to the faithful. Act as though you have never thought any differently:

Of course there are disease germs-- every sane person knows this. However, germs do not attack you if you are protected by god. Sickness is a sign of a weak, faithless spirit. My grandmother never got sick because she prayed every day and read her bible.

Finally, when the evidence is absolutely undeniable and accepted in all circles, the religious people "discover" that--surprise!-- it was in the bible all along! Science has at last vindicated what people who were reading their bibles correctly knew from the beginning:

Surely you cannot deny the wisdom of god. See right here where it says "things not seen" and then skip to the part where it tells the children of Israel to do a ritual of washing after touching unclean things! How could people have known about germs way back then before the invention of the microscope? Science has proven that the bible is true!
http://whatjwsteach.tumblr.com/

That is what appears to be happening with the theory of evolution with the "okay but-micro-not-macro" compromise. I suggest making some screen captures and printouts of skeptic's posts. In the years to come there will no doubt be some "evolution" in his thinking.

He will say that, not only is evolution the factual explanation accepted by all sane people, but lo and behold, the bible had it right all along!  Homo habilis, opposable thumbs, endemic species, Darwin's finches,  giraffe's laryngeal nerve and chimp DNA, clearly explained in the bible, just waiting for the right interpretation!

I can't wait to see how they manage to keep Noah's Ark-- maybe it will become one of those metaphors, or yet another part of the OT (like all the sex--rape, incest and never-ending begats) that we are not supposed to pay much attention to...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 05, 2013, 09:37:30 PM
Quote from: nogodsforme
When I was a JW kid back in the 1960's we were told that there was no such thing as evolution. Period. None of this halfway namby-pamby…

What I'd do?

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 05, 2013, 09:48:14 PM
Quote from: nogodsforme
When I was a JW kid back in the 1960's we were told that there was no such thing as evolution. Period. None of this halfway namby-pamby…

What I'd do?

;)

-Nam

I don't know, but you did it with Pam.... :?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 05, 2013, 09:52:34 PM
Quote from: nogodsforme
When I was a JW kid back in the 1960's we were told that there was no such thing as evolution. Period. None of this halfway namby-pamby…

What I'd do?

;)

-Nam

I don't know, but you did it with Pam.... :?

I haven't seen Pam since the 7th grade, and we just did oral, that's it! I don't see the problem...or wait, is it my ex's twin sister Pam? We just talked. I swear on Nam we just talked...I think.

It's all so confusing...

  :-[

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 05, 2013, 11:46:32 PM
Our skin heals itself when you get cut.
Unless you have venous insufficiency in your feet and lower legs, in which case you develop ulcers that can persist for years.  Human skin is frightfully easy to cut, too, unlike the hide of a cow.  A single piece of paper or low humidity can both cause nasty cuts.

Quote
We cough when something obstructs our airway so we don't die from it.
That "something" is usually food.  Not a very good design at all if the air supply and the food supply are sharing a common passageway.

Quote
Poop comes out instead of staying inside of us until we blow up.
Not always, and not particularly well.  There are a lot of examples of structural and functional problems in the lower gastrointestinal tract.  The long "small" intestine in the human body is prone to life-threatening obstructions, the colon and distal small intestine may be afflicted with Crohn's disease, and then there are hemorrhoids.

Now, if *I* were designing a digestive system I'd make it more efficient so there would be less waste, better extraction of energy from the food, and fewer parts.  From the time you take a bite of a sandwich and poop out the end products, that sandwich passes the mouth, palate, throat, esophagus, stomach, small and large intestines (passing through several valves along the way, all of which are prone to malfunction), and the liver, gallbladder and pancreas also have to get involved.  What a mess.

Quote
Our eyes water when dust gets into it to wash it out.
Our eyes also require a lot of technological assists in order to focus properly, especially as we age.  Neurological conditions, cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration and diabetes can blind us no matter how much dust we wash out.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 06, 2013, 12:49:48 AM
Or it means there is a common designer.
Who acted in exactly the way we expect from natural evolution, and who left no signs whatsoever of their 'design'.  Indeed, who did things that make no sense in terms of design, but make perfect sense in terms of evolution.

Honestly, 'God' doesn't explain how life developed on Earth nearly as well as evolution does, and never will.  There is just too much evidence that contradicts assertions of design, and too little (in fact, virtually none) that supports those assertions.

The human body is extraordinarily designed.

Our skin heals itself when you get cut.
We cough when something obstructs our airway so we don't die from it.
Poop comes out instead of staying inside of us until we blow up.
Our eyes water when dust gets into it to wash it out.

Lots of things that couldn't have "just happened" on their own.
These things all indicate purposeful design.
quite possibly the dumbest argument put forward by a creationist EVER
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Fiji on November 06, 2013, 03:54:17 AM
The human body is an absolute nightmare design wise. We're a one trick pony ... big brains, that's it, everything else is subordinate to that. Sure, we have ingenious ankles but why do we need ingenious joints specifically in our hind legs? Because we're vertical creatures trapped inside horizontal bodies.
Everything about us screams horizontality.
Some of the problems Astreja mentioned are due to our guts 'hanging' from the backbone ... an excellent design ... when you're on all fours. In humans, the intestines don't actually HANG, they're just lumped in there like a pile of dirty laundry.

Perfect example of how evolution can never go back to the drawing board. All it can do is tweak what's already there. From a design point of view, the human body only makes sense if the designer was massively drunk when putting it together or was a gigantic asshole who wanted to play a cruel joke on all of humanity.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 06, 2013, 04:47:19 AM
The human body is extraordinarily designed.

Our skin heals itself when you get cut.
We cough when something obstructs our airway so we don't die from it.
Poop comes out instead of staying inside of us until we blow up.
Our eyes water when dust gets into it to wash it out.

These things all indicate purposeful design.

Others have quite successfully covered how evolution answers all your "points", so I'm going to take a different tack.

Our skin is impervious to cuts, so it never needs to heal.
Out breathing and digestive systems are completely separate, dramatically reducing the chance of our airways getting blocked.
Foodstuffs and digestion are designed so that everything is absorbed from food, so there is nothing left to excrete.
An additional nerveless fixed cornea over the eye (sorta like a natural set of goggles) prevents all grit and dust getting into our eyes in the first place.

Now THOSE would be clear evidence that the human body was designed.  You say "a designer created workarounds for all the problems that can happen with our bodies".  I say "if there was a designer, there would be no workarounds - the potential problems simply wouldn't exist in the first place".

Your four poor examples are an excellent set of reasons against a designer.  Thanks for posting them!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Iamrational on November 06, 2013, 06:05:51 AM
Hey Skeptic why don't we have sonar or two eyelids?

I am always bumping into furniture in the dark and here in Arizona dust is constantly getting into my eyes.

Please ask your dude to get on that, thanks!

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 06, 2013, 11:22:06 AM
And our big brains get us into trouble-- by telling us things that are not true. Sure that flicker out of the corner of my eye might be just a leaf, but it could be a fairy or a demon! Act accordingly.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 06, 2013, 11:56:36 AM
Horses can die if hey roll around the wrong way when they're sick.  Bad design.

The appendix in humans... just kind of.. explodes.  A lot.

Things with better eye features than Humans: 
Tarsier (huge with incredibly detailed vision, may be able to see ultraviolet light),
Chameleon (360 degrees, independent),
Dragon flies (30,000 ommatidia!),
Leaf Tailed geckos (about 350 times better than humans in low light, has a membrane),
Colossal Squid (Huge, has it's own light source for seeing in the dark, deformable so it can be focused by the squid),

Mantis Shrimp.  They have 12 types of color receptors.  12, on top of that they can see in UV, infrared and have the most complex eyesight of any animal known.  They can rotate independently and are so complex the visual information is processed by the eyes rather than the brain itself.  The Mantis Shrimp eyes are broken into three parts each giving them trinocular vision in each eye.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/mantis_shrimp/mantis_shrimp_1.png)



Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 06, 2013, 11:57:37 AM
Second half of the huge image.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/mantis_shrimp/mantis_shrimp_2.png)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 06, 2013, 03:50:23 PM
That stuff about the different kinds of eyes is awesome. The human eye is only average, at best.

It is only through ignorance about the rest of nature that we humans can think that we are all that and a bag of chips. What you have seems like the best thing ever, but only if you have nothing else to compare it to.[1] Every nice, smart, beautiful thing we humans have done on the planet is far outweighed by the fact that we are trying to destroy as much of it as we can, as fast as we possibly can. We can't survive without the planet, but the planet can survive without us. 

Give dolphins, dogs or elephants human advantages --mainly opposable thumbs plus the ability to read and write language-- they probably would not waste them:

1) removing all taste and nutritional value from food, and then adding them back artificially
2) tricking others to want things they don't need and can't afford, and then tricking them into going into debt
3) designing nuclear warheads with the capability to destroy all life in the world, just to threaten each other
4) putting water in disposable plastic bottles that will outlive the person drinking it.

And, oh yeah,  making up religion. &)

Intelligent design? The pinnacle of all creation? Hardly. :P
 1. It's like men who want to fool around until they marry, but want their wives to be virgins....remember the Muslim guy on this site who said that he did not want his wife to be able to compare him sexually to other men? 
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 06, 2013, 07:59:04 PM
Do we eat mantis shrimp,are they delicious? Why would a God waste such detailed view of the world on something we find delicious?

 The answer is simple it evolved that way to help it's survival chances.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 06, 2013, 08:13:56 PM
Do we eat mantis shrimp,are they delicious? Why would a God waste such detailed view of the world on something we find delicious?

 The answer is simple it evolved that way to help it's survival chances.

What about the cuttlefish that can reshape it's eye.  Think about that.  As humans grow older, our vision gets less and less efficient, we frequently have to wear corrective lenses, or in some cases just reshape the cornea manually.  The cuttlefish does this instinctively. 
Need to see something far away... no problem.  Need to see something close... no problem.
Thats even without all the camoflage coloration and body shaping stuff.

That would be a pretty useful thing for humans to have don'tcha think?

Just about our most adaptive feature is balls that hang down to cool sperm, which for some reason has to be a temperature completely other than the rest of the body.  If they're at the same temperature as the body; they die. Great design choices there there, god. /sarcasm



Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 06, 2013, 08:37:36 PM
Do we eat mantis shrimp,are they delicious? Why would a God waste such detailed view of the world on something we find delicious?

 The answer is simple it evolved that way to help it's survival chances.

What about the cuttlefish that can reshape it's eye.  Think about that.  As humans grow older, our vision gets less and less efficient, we frequently have to wear corrective lenses, or in some cases just reshape the cornea manually.  The cuttlefish does this instinctively. 
Need to see something far away... no problem.  Need to see something close... no problem.
Thats even without all the camoflage coloration and body shaping stuff.

That would be a pretty useful thing for humans to have don'tcha think?

Just about our most adaptive feature is balls that hang down to cool sperm, which for some reason has to be a temperature completely other than the rest of the body.  If they're at the same temperature as the body; they die. Great design choices there there, god. /sarcasm
I am in agreement with you,more direct I should be? My point was more of why God would help this creature and almost all other animals,with better design than that made in "his image". Is the design of God himself that flawed that he has so many weak points that are stronger in so many like species?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 07, 2013, 12:31:43 AM
I am in agreement with you,more direct I should be?
Yes I know.  You were perfectly clear.  I was just re-reinforcing your point.  Also, I wanted to throw the balls thing in there because.. well, talking about them amuses me, but it's also a pretty, if you'll pardon the term, in your face problem for ID folks.

Yep, it's one of the great big flaws in the idea of intelligent design.

Or at least intelligent design by an intelligent designer anyway.  Who knows we could all die and learn that we were supposed to be worshipping a giant mantis shrimp all this time. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that particular religion though.

Of course that isn't the real flaw in intelligent design.  The real flaw is that it isn't science and thus not only cannot be falsified, but cannot be experimented upon.  Unlike say.. evolution theory.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Fiji on November 07, 2013, 03:51:33 AM
Quote from: nogodsforme
When I was a JW kid back in the 1960's we were told that there was no such thing as evolution. Period. None of this halfway namby-pamby…

What I'd do?

;)

-Nam


Hm, 'by' is Danish for 'town' ... ie. gammeleby is 'old town'
So ... Namby ... holy septic tank! Are you telling me there's an entire town of Nams?!!!!
If that's not a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is!!!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 08, 2013, 12:21:48 AM
And our big brains get us into trouble-- by telling us things that are not true.

Such as molecules to man evolution?
"Billions of years old" theory?

i thought your brain was "you" according to materialism?

How can the "brain" tell "you" something?

You may not want to admit it, but you just admitted we have a soul.
otherwise, why the distinction between the brain and you?


Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 08, 2013, 12:26:24 AM
Our skin heals itself when you get cut.
Unless you have venous insufficiency in your feet and lower legs, in which case you develop ulcers that can persist for years.  Human skin is frightfully easy to cut, too, unlike the hide of a cow.  A single piece of paper or low humidity can both cause nasty cuts.

Quote
We cough when something obstructs our airway so we don't die from it.
That "something" is usually food.  Not a very good design at all if the air supply and the food supply are sharing a common passageway.

Quote
Poop comes out instead of staying inside of us until we blow up.
Not always, and not particularly well.  There are a lot of examples of structural and functional problems in the lower gastrointestinal tract.  The long "small" intestine in the human body is prone to life-threatening obstructions, the colon and distal small intestine may be afflicted with Crohn's disease, and then there are hemorrhoids.

Now, if *I* were designing a digestive system I'd make it more efficient so there would be less waste, better extraction of energy from the food, and fewer parts.  From the time you take a bite of a sandwich and poop out the end products, that sandwich passes the mouth, palate, throat, esophagus, stomach, small and large intestines (passing through several valves along the way, all of which are prone to malfunction), and the liver, gallbladder and pancreas also have to get involved.  What a mess.

Quote
Our eyes water when dust gets into it to wash it out.
Our eyes also require a lot of technological assists in order to focus properly, especially as we age.  Neurological conditions, cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration and diabetes can blind us no matter how much dust we wash out.

Well, nobody said the human body has to be indestructible. That's a strawman.

Our bodies get worse and worse over generations because of sin corrupting our genes. The first humans God created wouldn't have had these problems that we have today.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 08, 2013, 12:28:36 AM
What is the physical mechanism by which sin corrupts our genes, shep?

Also, it was you who said our bodies were "extraordinarily designed".  What did you mean by that, if not that they were very well-designed?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 08, 2013, 12:35:23 AM
What is the physical mechanism by which sin corrupts our genes, shep?

Also, it was you who said our bodies were "extraordinarily designed".  What did you mean by that, if not that they were very well-designed?

They are extraordinarily designed in the sense that without a certain part of the body, it all breaks down.

Think of a mouse trap. If one part of the trap is missing, it won't work.

Nothing can evolve on its own like that. It must be created fully formed.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 08, 2013, 12:44:58 AM
What is the physical mechanism by which sin corrupts our genes, shep?

Also, it was you who said our bodies were "extraordinarily designed".  What did you mean by that, if not that they were very well-designed?

They are extraordinarily designed in the sense that without a certain part of the body, it all breaks down.

Think of a mouse trap. If one part of the trap is missing, it won't work.

Nothing can evolve on its own like that. It must be created fully formed.

Did you actually just try to use the failed mousetrap analogy? Honesty? Dude, stop going to creationist websites and just pulling shit off there and pasting it here. It's really tiresome. I mean you don't even bother to look up the opposing side on anything. You just seek out only the things that support your view and post them. Are you that biased that you can't even look at both sides before posting here?

Anyways, the mousetrap thing fails. First, b/c it's a false analogy. You can't compare non-living things to living things. Second, b/c the mousetrap CAN have parts taken off and still function as something else (such as a tie clip). You really need to take some courses in evolution or watch some YouTube videos before posting this stuff. It's lame. Watch this video please:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c)


Oh, and meet the challenge of the OP!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 08, 2013, 12:51:38 AM
What is the physical mechanism by which sin corrupts our genes, shep?

Also, it was you who said our bodies were "extraordinarily designed".  What did you mean by that, if not that they were very well-designed?

They are extraordinarily designed in the sense that without a certain part of the body, it all breaks down.

Think of a mouse trap. If one part of the trap is missing, it won't work.

Nothing can evolve on its own like that. It must be created fully formed.

Did you actually just try to use the failed mousetrap analogy? Honesty? Dude, stop going to creationist websites and just pulling shit off there and pasting it here. It's really tiresome. I mean you don't even bother to look up the opposing side on anything. You just seek out only the things that support your view and post them. Are you that biased that you can't even look at both sides before posting here?

Anyways, the mousetrap thing fails. First, b/c it's a false analogy. You can't compare non-living things to living things. Second, b/c the mousetrap CAN have parts taken off and still function as something else (such as a tie clip). You really need to take some courses in evolution or watch some YouTube videos before posting this stuff. It's lame. Watch this video please:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c)


Oh, and meet the challenge of the OP!

I am sorry median but it looks like we are at an impasse.

I have used the definition of evolution that came from the university of berkeley and the one straight off the wikipedia page. You said those definitions weren't good enough.

Heck, if I use the definition that talkorigins uses, you would say it's not good enough.

Maybe at this point, we should just agree to disagree. If you don't agree with evolution definitions from 3 different websites, there's nothing I can do about it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 08, 2013, 12:54:01 AM
And our big brains get us into trouble-- by telling us things that are not true.

Such as molecules to man evolution?
"Billions of years old" theory?

i thought your brain was "you" according to materialism?

How can the "brain" tell "you" something?

You may not want to admit it, but you just admitted we have a soul.
otherwise, why the distinction between the brain and you?

The brain is a complex biochemical organ and your Argument from Incredulity fallacies (over and over) will not accomplish your goal (b/c it's irrational argumentation to do so). You demonstrate flawed black/white thinking and reductionist attempts in nearly everything you post here. The simpleton mentally does not fly in science, sorry.

Btw, she admitted no such thing. Talking about the various aspects, functions, and contingencies of the brain is in no way saying we have a soul. You are, again, deliberately misrepresenting her position. That is called Bearing False Witness (a sin according to you). Does it feel good to lie for Jesus?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 08, 2013, 12:57:51 AM

I am sorry median but it looks like we are at an impasse.

I have used the definition of evolution that came from the university of berkeley and the one straight off the wikipedia page. You said those definitions weren't good enough.

Heck, if I use the definition that talkorigins uses, you would say it's not good enough.

Maybe at this point, we should just agree to disagree. If you don't agree with evolution definitions from 3 different websites, there's nothing I can do about it.

You should be sorry, b/c you haven't understood the OP. Can you read? Go back and read the OP and actually bring forth what it is asking! It doesn't ask for a copy/paste. It doesn't only ask for a definition and that's it. It asks a lot more of you than that. Did you fail to read that part? WOW. No, we're not at an 'impasse'. You are just being lazy and/or resistant to anything that doesn't fit with your worldview/method of willful ignorance.


EDIT: Here, I'll make it easy for you!

Quote
1) Properly articulate the Theory of Evolution (what it is, what it's main claims and evidences are, etc). This requires you to do your homework in order to meet this challenge. You must rightly, accurately, and correctly represent the Theory of Evolution as it is described by those in the professional field who maintain it. So you are going to have to do some research by studying those resources that understand and support the concepts.

PLACES TO START: -talkorigins.org (http://talkorigins.org/)

-http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm (http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm)
-http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html (http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html)
-http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation (http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html#speciation)

2) Once you have fully met condition #1, then describe why you disagree with the theory (TOE for short) and what your disagreement actually means to you.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 08, 2013, 01:02:53 AM
They are extraordinarily designed in the sense that without a certain part of the body, it all breaks down.

Think of a mouse trap. If one part of the trap is missing, it won't work.

Nothing can evolve on its own like that. It must be created fully formed.

So by "extraordinarily designed" you really meant "very simply and mundanely designed".  If you meant that, then why didn't you say that?  Aside from avoiding the sin of honesty, I mean.

Also:

What is the physical mechanism by which sin corrupts our genes, shep?

Genes are physical.  If something is meddling with them, then that something is subject to observation and experimentation.  So, out with it - spell out the phenomenon you're describing.

Also, why has the effect of "sin" so far evaded the medical community?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 08, 2013, 01:05:28 AM
They are extraordinarily designed in the sense that without a certain part of the body, it all breaks down.

Think of a mouse trap. If one part of the trap is missing, it won't work.

Nothing can evolve on its own like that. It must be created fully formed.

Skeptic, we've demonstrated that things can evolve like that. The very fact that the human body contains so many functional but substandard parts is evidence that we acquired those parts (with all their flaws) from ancestral species.

Sometimes when a genetic change results in a new trait, it takes hundreds of generations for that trait to become useful to the organism that carries it.  It's neutral until and unless it either makes the carrier more successful for reproduction, or so unsuccessful that the line dies out.  All living organisms on the Earth today are examples of successful modifications in their genes.

A new feature becomes useful by aiding survival and reproduction, but how?  Well, perhaps an enzyme in the body becomes important if a catastrophe wipes out some of the food chain, and only animals with that enzyme can digest the food that remains.  Those are the ones that reproduce and carry on.

Perhaps the earliest version of the eye was a group of cells that were able to generate electrical energy when exposed to higher light levels.

Perhaps the liver's ancestor was a collection of cells that could store glucose or break down fat.

Oh, and there's a huge, huge difference between "indestructible" and "works well."  If a god did design the human body, it's a complete idiot.

As for "sin" corrupting genes, I second Azdgari's request:  Kindly describe the physical processes whereby a hypothetical non-physical entity can affect the chemical structure of DNA.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 08, 2013, 01:08:18 AM
(http://www.rationalvalley.com/images/inline/circular-logic-of-the-bible.gif)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Anfauglir on November 08, 2013, 05:25:46 AM
Well, nobody said the human body has to be indestructible. That's a strawman.

Our bodies get worse and worse over generations because of sin corrupting our genes. The first humans God created wouldn't have had these problems that we have today.

Whoah - hold on there Shep!  Layout the timeline for me there!

You originally said that your four examples (healing, coughing, pooping, crying) were things put in place by god to keep us live and healthy.

You are NOW saying that it is because of sin that we are having those kinds of problems.

So what is your point?  That when Yahweh kicked us out of Eden because he was so unhappy with our behaviour he immediately redesigned us "on the fly"?  That he said "hey Adam - I know you never had problems with healing before, but let me just re-engineer your skin, you'll need it in future"?   Sorry Shep - that makes no sense.  Removal from Eden was punishment, according to the Bible you know so well. 

Or are you saying that Yahweh pre-engineered the cough reflex and the ability to cry out dust before the Fall?  That he knew in advance that we would need to be able to poop in the future, and so he pre-designed us to be able to do it?  Well, great stuff - but to suggest that you admit that Yahweh knew that man would fall before the fall, so you then have to explain why he set things up that way in the first place.

And I note that you haven't bothered to address my point that your examples are all workarounds of a flawed initial design, rather than examples of a creator.  Too tricky for you to answer?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 08, 2013, 05:52:10 AM
Nothing can evolve on its own like that. It must be created fully formed.

Optic cells can be used without color detection, corneas or eyeballs.

Checkmate.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 08, 2013, 05:53:32 AM
Do we eat mantis shrimp,are they delicious? Why would a God waste such detailed view of the world on something we find delicious?

If i recall correctly, they are edible.

But not that great for eating, they make awesome pets though.

They can hit with the force of a bullet, a literal bullet that is.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 08, 2013, 11:03:29 AM
I won't bother to copy the whole thing, go read the link.  It's short.
Written as a response to Behe's mousetrap analogy.


http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html


(http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap1.gif)

Quote
A five-part mousetrap. This is a snap mousetrap, shown ready to catch a mouse. It has five main parts: a hammer, which kills the mouse; a spring, which snaps the hammer down on to the mouse; a hold-down bar, which holds the hammer in the cocked position; a catch, which holds the end of the hold-down bar and releases it when the mouse jiggles the catch; and a platform, to which everything else is attached. (The bait is not one of the "irreducible" parts of the mousetrap, since an unbaited trap will catch the occasional mouse that stumbles into the catch.)

(http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap2.gif)

(http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap3.gif)

(http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap4.gif)

(http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap5.gif)

Quote
A one-part mousetrap. I can think of at least a couple ways to make a one-part mousetrap from the two-part mousetrap. One would be to remove the spring and spread glue on the platform; you'd then have one of those barbaric glue traps that holds the mouse in place until it dies of thirst. The other way would be to straighten out a few coils of each end of the spring. One straight piece of the wire would then be bent so the end points up; the other piece of wire would come across and rest delicately on the upraised point. I don't have the wire-bending skills to make one of these, but if I did, I think the unlucky mouse that was standing under the top wire when it jiggled the trap would be just as dead as if it were killed by the much more complex five-part mousetrap.

Is it possible to design a better mousetrap?  A more complex one, with extra parts?  Sure.
The argument behind irreducible complexity however is shown to be a failure.



edit - quote fixed
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 08, 2013, 11:23:14 AM
And our big brains get us into trouble-- by telling us things that are not true.

Such as molecules to man evolution?
"Billions of years old" theory?

i thought your brain was "you" according to materialism?

How can the "brain" tell "you" something?

You may not want to admit it, but you just admitted we have a soul.
otherwise, why the distinction between the brain and you?

Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

There is tons of research on the brain and how it functions. Our brains have a mechanism to separate  our consciousness from the brain's functioning so we are not aware of the brain doing its thing.[1] We get sensory input that gets organized and communicated to us as information. No evidence [yet] of any separate immortal or even mortal soul anywhere.

I am currently reading a book on the discovery of some amazing fossils of scary ugly extinct life forms. It is called Wonderful Life by Professor Stephen Jay Gould--one of my nerd heroes. Not an easy read like Sith Lord Dawkins, who breaks things down more for a lay audience, but it is truly mindbogglingly excellent.

Gould shows how evolution could have gone in several different directions, none of which had to end up with mammals, let alone primates. So, "molecules to man" is definitely not the way anything had to go.....but molecules to some kind of life, definitely yes. Please, please, go read something, skeptic!
 1. There is some evidence that suggests that schizophrenia and other mental illness happens when we become too aware of the brain functioning and "hear" it talking to us.  We then start thinking that there is a separate entity in our heads. Could also explain why some people are very aware of "god's presence" and others are not? Typical egocentric humans....
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 08, 2013, 11:25:08 AM
Well, nobody said the human body has to be indestructible. That's a strawman.
Except nobody is suggesting that.  In fact, claiming that we're saying you think the human body had to be indestructible is itself a strawman.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Our bodies get worse and worse over generations because of sin corrupting our genes. The first humans God created wouldn't have had these problems that we have today.
So what, you're saying sin is like radiation?  Okay, great.  Now figure out how to show other people that this "sin radiation" actually exists, and you'll be well on your way to showing that your belief has real validity.

It takes more than just saying something to be convincing.  For example, after people started experimenting with uranium and other radioactive elements, many of those people would later on get sick and die.  We had evidence that something was happening to them, and the effects allowed us to figure out what and eventually detect it.

But right now, you don't have any evidence.  Just an unsupported claim about how the first humans were somehow perfect, which is based on bad reasoning about genetics and entropy.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 08, 2013, 11:27:41 AM
He won't step outside his assumptions. All he does it post and run.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 08, 2013, 11:44:39 AM
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 08, 2013, 11:49:21 AM
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

Except your definition of "knowing" anything about Christianity basically means only those who agree with your interpretation of it. The difference is far and wide. I've read the bible many times, studied the bible, taught the bible, and preached the bible for many years. I've taken many seminary and bible courses and as a result your theology very well. Have you done the same with evolutionary biology? Have you taken that many courses and done the research?

You can SAY, all day long, that non-believers "don't know anything" about the bible but that assertion is baseless, since we do!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 08, 2013, 11:50:20 AM
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

Except your definition of "knowing" anything about Christianity basically means only those who agree with your interpretation of it. The difference is far and wide. I've read the bible many times, studied the bible, taught the bible, and preached the bible for many years. I've taken many seminary and bible courses and as a result your theology very well. Have you done the same with evolutionary biology? Have you taken that many courses and done the research?

You can SAY, all day long, that non-believers "don't know anything" about the bible but that assertion is baseless, since we do!

So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 08, 2013, 12:08:15 PM
So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?

I don't know about nogods, I'll let her answer for herself. But I see you posting here with your interpretation of the bible. Is sounds like you're saying the when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation.

I myself could read the bible all day long and never worry about how to interpret the text. Its fiction.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 08, 2013, 12:10:58 PM

So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?

NOPE. Can you read? I said your accusations are baseless in that many of us DO know your bible quite well (arguably better than you) but you do not know evolutionary biological science as such. You haven't studied it, so you are on unequal ground in your attempts to draw that analogy. The truth is painful isn't it?

Furthermore, if your interpretation of the bible leads to logical absurdity, irrational arguments, and rationalizations or 'spin tactics' then your interpretation is a false one b/c it is based on Confirmation Bias and an unwillingness to amend your view when shown in error. Are you actually trying to compare the scientific method of investigation and testing to your interpretation method of viewing the bible (starting with your conclusion and trying to work backwards) when science does the opposite? The methods are quite reverse. No, I didn't in any way state that everyone must agree with my interpretation of the bible but if yours is irrational, contradictory, or unmovable (which is clearly the case) then your interpretation is untrustworthy b/c it is based upon faulty premises and/or assumptions which make you an unreliable source for interpretation.

-Still waiting for you to actually read the OP in full and meet the challenge.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 08, 2013, 12:22:27 PM
To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.
Au contraire.  Formerly-Christian atheists tend to know a lot more about the Bible than you assume.  For example, I regularly read the Bible in church every week when I was growing up, so I have a pretty good understanding of what it says.  And while I'm not an atheist, at least in the strict sense of the term, former Christian describes me quite well.

Quote from: skeptic54768
That's why I say, "impasse."
When you say 'impasse', it sounds an awful lot like 'excuse' for some reason.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: screwtape on November 08, 2013, 12:28:52 PM
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

To be fair?  There is nothing fair about your commentary.  It is a dodge from you taking responsibility for your own willful ignorance and continued mischaracterization of ToE.  It is a red herring to distract from the actual topic.

The point is you keep saying things about evolution that are completely untrue.  Address that without resorting to, "oh yeah? well you guys do it too."   Answer the point.



Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 08, 2013, 01:39:59 PM
So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?

No Shep. That is what your demon says. Your demon makes you talk nonsense about scientific subjects which you have never studied, and your demon makes you think that things are in the bible which are not even there. Your demon has led you astray. I have given some examples on your own thread - proof of the demon of Shep666.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 08, 2013, 02:09:31 PM
If we don't interpret the Bible the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret the Bible incorrectly.
If we don't interpret Evolution the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret Evolution incorrectly.

Until we do we are always wrong in skeptic's mind. If he has a mind.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 08, 2013, 03:30:48 PM
If we don't interpret the Bible the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret the Bible incorrectly.
If we don't interpret Evolution the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret Evolution incorrectly.

Skeptic.incorrectly = -(incorrectly)   ;)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 08, 2013, 03:35:25 PM
If we don't interpret the Bible the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret the Bible incorrectly.
If we don't interpret Evolution the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret Evolution incorrectly.

Skeptic.incorrectly = -(incorrectly)   ;)

Well I'd call him "idiot demon" like I want to but apparently everyone else is allowed to call him names and I am not. My posts get deleted while everyone else's stay intact.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 08, 2013, 05:00:05 PM
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

Okay, skeptic.

An atheist--say me-- agrees to read a bible passage (chosen by you) and summarize it properly and accurately (again, judged by you). Then I will explain why it is not correct from my point of view. Then you do the same with a passage about evolutionary biology. That is, do what the OP suggested in the first place instead of continually dodging and diverting attention away from the point. 

You seem to be afraid to even consider the possibility that the TOE might be true. Your arguments against it are not based on facts and evidence. You don't even understand what it is you are against-- as evidenced by your inability to accurately summarize in your own words what the TOE says.

I grew up reading the bible and bible-based religious literature for several hours every single day of my life, from age 4 on.[1] Can you say you have given evolutionary theory anywhere near the same level of dedicated attention? I still read religious literature from time to time, from many different religious perspectives. I teach global studies classes where we deal with religion all the time. I probably know more about the different religions of the world than you do, skeptic. I simply don't believe any of them are factually and literally true![2]

Most of us here are willing to consider the possibility of religious ideas or the bible being true, if presented with sufficient supporting facts and evidence. But we don't get any facts or evidence from religious folks. Instead we get people telling us to ignore all contradictions and inaccuracies, only have faith and believe in magic. But that only holds for the magic of their particular religion. The contradictions and inaccuracies of other religions are fair game...[3]

So, it is not a matter of being close-minded to god or religion. It is that, having examined the ideas and arguments--and in some cases, believing them for many years of our lives--we don't think they make any sense. People are not supposed to make important life decisions (like who to marry or what job to take or where to live) based on things that are not true. And religion should be demonstrably true, and at least make logical sense, if it is really the most important life decision ever, as people like you tell us. 
 1. What a waste that was!  &)I now wish I could have spent all that time studying more biological and physical science...
 2. I just finished teaching a unit on Chinese cultural values where we looked at Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. Before that we looked at the Catholic faith and the Protestant reformation in Europe. In a few weeks we will study Hinduism in India. Next term, we will learn about Islam and the Middle East.
 3. That is where the scientific method is different from religion. In science you present your ideas at conferences and invite people to tear your theory apart and show where it is wrong. The process of correcting mistakes and incorporating critique makes a theory stronger and more likely to be true. Taking apart and critiquing the TOE as proposed by Darwin in the 1800's has led to thousands of different avenues of useful research and entirely new fields of science.

In religion, the truth is handed to you and assumed a priori; evidence is gathered only to support what you have already assumed to be the case. Like "intelligent design" assumes the existence of both intelligence and design, therefore god. Disagreement, alternative explanations and critique are discouraged, punished (by, for example exile or burning at the stake) and can lead to actual warfare.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 08, 2013, 06:42:55 PM
We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

but this is off-topic for this thread.

Yea, this is off topic, but since you aren't one to contribute to topics anyway, I'll respond.

How come demons are so mobile? Your god couldn't even find a way to get Moses and the gang out of the desert and your demons were over in India starting Hinduism, in the Americas starting native religions, there, in Australia and Africa, starting religions there, in SE Asia, starting religions there. I'll admit, that for some reason they weren't as mobile as it seems, because they avoided the Chinese, who didn't bother coming up with any serious gods. But otherwise, you know, its puzzling. (I mean, if there is a god and there are demons, its puzzling. Otherwise, never mind.)

So why is it your god couldn't get out of the Middle East? The whole region, Turkey and Egypt and all,  is only about the size of the United States, and he couldn't find any way to get his religion out of that region until a couple of thousand years ago, long after your demons populated the world with false religions?

And what did he make the demons out of anyway? I don't remember that coming up in the bible. I know satan was an angel (and I assume you don't ever bother wondering why an angel so close to your god would split with the guy. I guess satan realized that your god was a whimp, and didn't see any need to stick with a guy who never went anywhere.) Anyway, were demons made out of dust too? Did they have a tree of life to mess with? How come they're so mean and you're so wonderful?

And can I be an ademonist too, or does that piss them off?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 09, 2013, 01:02:24 AM
Well I'd call him "idiot demon" like I want to but apparently everyone else is allowed to call him names and I am not. My posts get deleted while everyone else's stay intact.

Personally, I think it's more fun to call his arguments names.  Try My method, Nam:  Clench your fists till the knuckles turn white, swear under your breath, and then eviscerate his posts in the most elegant and polite prose you can muster.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 09, 2013, 01:10:15 AM
Agreed, Astreja.  Polite contempt can cut more deeply than the meanest insult.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Jag on November 09, 2013, 08:57:19 AM
I don't see that either approach has had much effect.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 10, 2013, 12:47:14 AM
I don't see that either approach has had much effect.

Well, My writing is improving.  Does that count?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 10, 2013, 01:24:59 AM
Parking places makes a good point.

Why does god seem to only get to countries that, gosh, Christians spread to?

Why did Indians believe in Hinduism before colonization?

Why did the Aboriginals of Australia believe in the great Rainbow Serpent before Christians came to plunder?

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 10, 2013, 01:35:51 AM
Well I'd call him "idiot demon" like I want to but apparently everyone else is allowed to call him names and I am not. My posts get deleted while everyone else's stay intact.

Personally, I think it's more fun to call his arguments names.  Try My method, Nam:  Clench your fists till the knuckles turn white, swear under your breath, and then eviscerate his posts in the most elegant and polite prose you can muster.

He'd probably put me on ignore like DT did. That's the method I used on him. The more vulgar and asinine things DT said, the more polite I was.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 10, 2013, 07:49:19 AM
I'll admit, that for some reason they weren't as mobile as it seems, because they avoided the Chinese, who didn't bother coming up with any serious gods. But otherwise, you know, its puzzling. (I mean, if there is a god and there are demons, its puzzling. Otherwise, never mind.)

I think you've hit the nail on the bucket, there.

If there were demons, and they wanted to undermine the true religion, the best way to do it, would be to seed a universal religion in all continents, so the Australian aboriginals would be worshipping the same God. And, we'd all be, like, see, the Australian aboriginals believe the same thing, because God is everywhere, and these silly Christians, who worship a resurrected corn dolly, are just plain deviants.

Problem with demons: either they are stronger or weaker than God.  I could be stronger than God, if you gave me some sophisticated tools, so demons should be easily stronger than God, if they act on this plane. They should be able to convert everyone to a false religion, easily. The bizarre thing is that Christians think that the Catholic church brought them the true religion, when all the protestants are saying that teh Pope is teh antiChrist.

From a protestant perspective, the religion is brought to them by Satan.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 10, 2013, 05:56:27 PM
Parking places makes a good point.

Why does god seem to only get to countries that, gosh, Christians spread to?

Because that is how God wanted his message to be spread: by his followers who believe in Him out of their own free will.

I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not. You will have to ask God. This is basically an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't know why God does things in a certain manner doesn't mean that there is no reason why God does things a certain way.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 10, 2013, 05:59:43 PM
I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not.

If a real god picked such a badly sub-par method of doing something, then it must not have been a very important task according to that god.

As for the "believing according to free will" thing - isn't it more important to believe things because they're convincing/true, rather than because one wilfully chooses to?  Because one can willfully choose to believe anything, if no constraints are put upon that freedom.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 10, 2013, 06:10:42 PM
I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not.

If a real god picked such a badly sub-par method of doing something, then it must not have been a very important task according to that god.

As for the "believing according to free will" thing - isn't it more important to believe things because they're convincing/true, rather than because one wilfully chooses to?  Because one can willfully choose to believe anything, if no constraints are put upon that freedom.

Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 10, 2013, 06:16:17 PM
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 10, 2013, 06:19:59 PM
1. That didn't help people who hadn't gotten the book spread to them yet, such as the American people before Columbus, or the South African and Australian people before the British.
2. And in these cases, the "Word of God" was accompanied by genocide and slavery.  Gods, this is what happens when you let imperialistic humans spread your word for you.
3. According to you, it apparently hasn't stopped the demons from taking over control of most of the preaching of that word in the end anyway.

That's three big flaws, Skep.  Letting everyone know that a god is real so that they are free to make a decision of whether to follow it, instead of hiding behind humans and taking away that freedom, would be a much better method.  That's what YHWH supposedly did back in the Old Testament days, after all.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 10, 2013, 06:21:43 PM
Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.

Well, actually the best way to do it would be to provide clear information that matched reality well enough to be believable. If the biblical stories matched biological discoveries, geological discoveries, astronomical discoveries, historical discoveries and other research findings (even if it was not very detailed), and if the bible could explain why just one group got the info and if the bible could avoid wild-assed claims about the salt lady and walking on water and rising from the dead, and if the bible could explain why the such high expectations were put on the first two humans and stuff like that, then it would be far better than the mish-mash that is whatever version of the christian bible you happen to like. Just the fact that there are multiple versions should be enough to give you pause. Not to mention the tens of thousands of different versions of christianity, which one would not expect accurate information to create.

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 10, 2013, 06:41:26 PM
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 10, 2013, 06:50:10 PM
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.

So are you saying there was no free will? No one ever chose who they would marry or whether they would have children?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 10, 2013, 06:54:27 PM
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.

So are you saying there was no free will? No one ever chose who they would marry or whether they would have children?

Of course they chose it. But parents don't create the child's soul. That is God. Sometimes it's God's plan for people to have no children and contribute something even greater to society.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 10, 2013, 06:57:25 PM
Of course they chose it. But parents don't create the child's soul. That is God. Sometimes it's God's plan for people to have no children and contribute something even greater to society.

So if a couple tries and fail to conceive a child, they have every right to blame god.  Okay then...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 10, 2013, 06:58:15 PM
Define what a soul is.

How does it function to allow a biological organism to work?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 10, 2013, 07:11:00 PM
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.

So are you saying there was no free will? No one ever chose who they would marry or whether they would have children?

Of course they chose it. But parents don't create the child's soul. That is God. Sometimes it's God's plan for people to have no children and contribute something even greater to society.

What about the hair colour, eye colour, etc? Is that just the way it is because the parents met by chance or were the parents destined to meet?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 10, 2013, 07:34:19 PM
Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.

No it isn't.  That's probably one of the stupidest ways.


Much more straightforward would be the ability for all humans to innately sense god, much like the way you can close your eyes on a clear day and still know where the sun is.  Everybody, not just people in in a small mostly desert region on one part of the planet.  God should be knowable, findable and provable.

Heck, ancient sun worshippers had more proof of god than you do.



Easily debunked fiction does not qualify as the best way to show divinity.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 10, 2013, 09:15:18 PM

Is it possible to design a better mousetrap?  A more complex one, with extra parts?  Sure.
The argument behind irreducible complexity however is shown to be a failure.


One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 10, 2013, 09:16:55 PM
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 10, 2013, 09:35:07 PM
To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

I don't want to get into a debate about how well I know the Bible, but I guess what you are saying is that I know the Bible well enough to know it is crap, and I don't want to study it the way you have. This is what you feel about evolution, so you make no attempt to learn about it. That is actually the way I felt about the subject of Economics, at school. I was fine until they starting using graphs, to show supply and demand, and pretending that people could be mathematically modelled. At that point, I could learn no more about economics.

You have introduced a false dichotomy. If I become suddenly being skeptical of evolution, it does not mean that I would start to take literal Christianity seriously, any more than the Quran, or Bramivishnavedas. Millions of Christians can believe in Jesus, and still believe in evolution, and see a powerful god, who uses evolution. It is not black and white.

The reason you have introduced this false dichotomy, is that if you realized that the the world was 4 billion years old, then your faith would fall apart. Whereas, if I were a Hindu, that would confirm my faith. For you, seeing anything outside what you want to see, is death to your belief.

When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:20:50 AM
One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:22:07 AM
One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

Youtube: "The Blind Watch Maker"

And of course we don't find fossils of eyes (often) it's soft tissue.

*cough*
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/373/overrides/fossil-eyes-bee-comparison_37399_600x450.jpg)

The vertebrate eye is a different story.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:25:35 AM
When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:27:47 AM
Youtube: "The Blind Watch Maker"

And of course we don't find fossils of eyes (often) it's soft tissue.

*cough*
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/373/overrides/fossil-eyes-bee-comparison_37399_600x450.jpg)

The vertebrate eye is a different story.

I am sorry but I did not see an eye evolving in those pictures.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:28:55 AM
When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.

Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 12 Monkeys on November 11, 2013, 01:29:55 AM
Skep the difference between the scientist and the believer is simple,scientist can and allow themselves to be proven wrong based on EVIDENCE
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:30:19 AM
Youtube: "The Blind Watch Maker"

And of course we don't find fossils of eyes (often) it's soft tissue.

*cough*
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/373/overrides/fossil-eyes-bee-comparison_37399_600x450.jpg)

The vertebrate eye is a different story.

I am sorry but I did not see an eye evolving in those pictures.

You're not supposed to, as that wasn't the point of the post.

That was a strawman.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:33:47 AM
Skep the difference between the scientist and the believer is simple,scientist can and allow themselves to be proven wrong based on EVIDENCE

They sure do like to shout "We got the truth!" when they themselves don't even know if they have the truth.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:34:48 AM
Skep the difference between the scientist and the believer is simple,scientist can and allow themselves to be proven wrong based on EVIDENCE

They sure do like to shout "We got the truth!" when they themselves don't even know if they have the truth.

Name ONE scientist and link to the exact video or article of them claiming this.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:36:20 AM
Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:38:19 AM
Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.

That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:40:01 AM
Name ONE scientist and link to the exact video or article of them claiming this.

Good luck.

I now understand the mentality that atheists take everything literally. They do this for the Bible, and just did it for my post.

I did not literally mean they shout that out. It was hyperbole.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 11, 2013, 01:40:19 AM
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to.  For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.
Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more.  Well, the ignorant I suppose.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:41:09 AM
Name ONE scientist and link to the exact video or article of them claiming this.

Good luck.

I now understand the mentality that atheists take everything literally. They do this for the Bible, and just did it for my post.

I did not literally mean they shout that out. It was hyperbole.

Then don't claim that they do, hyperbole is useless in a serious conversation.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:42:13 AM
That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.

There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 01:44:55 AM
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to.  For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.
Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more.  Well, the ignorant I suppose.

You fail to understand the point. It's either a mousetrap, or it's not. If you want to use a mousetrap and only have a wooden board, you'll be catchin' a whole lot of nothin'.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Aaron123 on November 11, 2013, 01:45:37 AM
That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Apparently, skeptic666 has access to Doc Brown's Delorean.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:45:55 AM
That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.

There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.

Except for the fact that evolutionary biologists can accurately predict exactly where to go to find a specific type of fossil, based on the estimated time it lived, the type of environment it lived in, as well as several other factors. They were able to accurately predict where they would find Tiktaalik, and creationists are still parroting the same non-argument.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 01:47:05 AM
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to.  For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.
Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more.  Well, the ignorant I suppose.

You fail to understand the point. It's either a mousetrap, or it's not. If you want to use a mousetrap and only have a wooden board, you'll be catchin' a whole lot of nothin'.

You fail to understand that the mousetrap can still function with many (re: all but one) of it's parts removed.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 11, 2013, 01:47:19 AM
That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Evolution has plenty of facts to back it up as a theory.
Just because you remain ignorant as to how it works does not change that.

Thus far no alternative has emerged to contradict it.  None.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as your claims have no evidence they are dismissed summarily.
Come back when you have real evidence with scientific rigor attached to it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on November 11, 2013, 01:51:00 AM
You fail to understand the point. It's either a mousetrap, or it's not. If you want to use a mousetrap and only have a wooden board, you'll be catchin' a whole lot of nothin'.

If you're going to troll do it with somebody else.
Your lack of literacy is not my problem.  Go to the link I posted, read the one page article.  If you can't do that, don't bother responding.

The article clearly demonstrates how it's not only possible but rather easy to reduce the number of parts in a mousetrap and still have it potentially catch mice.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 02:09:45 AM
There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.

You seriously must be yanking our chains...

Then what will you assume could exist?

A trilobite dancing with a modern primate?

Perhaps a Megalodon playing tee-ball with a Meganeura?


Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 02:18:39 AM
You seriously must be yanking our chains...

Then what will you assume could exist?

A trilobite dancing with a modern primate?

Perhaps a Megalodon playing tee-ball with a Meganeura?

It's because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere except the textbooks. For example, if I went in my backyard and dug up a T-Rex, would the "Jurassic era" then be in my backyard?

Fossils are found willy nilly all over the place. No way to tell columns and eras from that. My backyard point testifies to that fact.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 02:20:14 AM
You seriously must be yanking our chains...

Then what will you assume could exist?

A trilobite dancing with a modern primate?

Perhaps a Megalodon playing tee-ball with a Meganeura?

It's because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere except the textbooks. For example, if I went in my backyard and dug up a T-Rex, would the "Jurassic era" then be in my backyard?

Fossils are found willy nilly all over the place. No way to tell columns and eras from that. My backyard point testifies to that fact.

Except for the fact that it exists everywhere including the Grand Canyon, a favorite among YECs, which I find incredibly entertaining and ironic.

You also have to use more than a garden trowel, and dig more than 10 feet in order to get anything demonstrable. Argument from Incredulity fallacy at it's finest.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 02:25:11 AM
You seriously must be yanking our chains...

Then what will you assume could exist?

A trilobite dancing with a modern primate?

Perhaps a Megalodon playing tee-ball with a Meganeura?

It's because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere except the textbooks. For example, if I went in my backyard and dug up a T-Rex, would the "Jurassic era" then be in my backyard?

Fossils are found willy nilly all over the place. No way to tell columns and eras from that. My backyard point testifies to that fact.

Except for the fact that it exists everywhere including the Grand Canyon, a favorite among YECs, which I find incredibly entertaining and ironic.

You also have to use more than a garden trowel, and dig more than 10 feet in order to get anything demonstrable. Argument from Incredulity fallacy at it's finest.

The geologic column exists in the Grand Canyon?
That's where they found every fossil?
If it's not where they found every fossil, then where is the column?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 02:29:48 AM
The geologic column exists in the Grand Canyon?
Yes

That's where they found every fossil?
Strawman

If it's not where they found every fossil, then where is the column?
Everywhere.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 02:30:27 AM
Fossils are found willy nilly all over the place. No way to tell columns and eras from that. My backyard point testifies to that fact.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vASJZz2CC8g/UiU0hiDlYTI/AAAAAAAACqg/0vCedsBzBjM/s320/no2.jpg)

It's because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere except the textbooks. For example, if I went in my backyard and dug up a T-Rex, would the "Jurassic era" then be in my backyard?

Its sad to see that in a modern society, there are still people who claim there is no such thing as a geological column.
Then what are you going to claim?
That there is no such thing as global warming?
That the earth is flat?

That's where they found every fossil?
If it's not where they found every fossil, then where is the column?

You know what the geological column is, right? O.o
Its not related to fossils...geo means "rock" .
Fossils are obviously not all in the same area, yet alone the grand canyon.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 02:30:58 AM
Everywhere.

So it can exist in my backyard?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 02:32:44 AM
Everywhere.

So it can exist in my backyard?

If you dig deep enough, yes.

It's not a matter of can it's a fact that it exists. Just because you can't see the geological column in your back yard doesn't mean it's not there, I can go to your back yard with an excavator, dig down to a predefined depth (with a permit of course) and DEMONSTRATE the geological column in your own back yard.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 11, 2013, 02:37:12 AM
Everywhere.

So it can exist in my backyard?

If you dig deep enough, yes.

It's not a matter of can it's a fact that it exists. Just because you can't see the geological column in your back yard doesn't mean it's not there, I can go to your back yard with an excavator, dig down to a predefined depth (with a permit of course) and DEMONSTRATE the geological column in your own back yard.

So it is possible that there could be a startling discovery in my backyard that could turn evolution on its head?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 02:41:25 AM
Everywhere.

So it can exist in my backyard?

If you dig deep enough, yes.

It's not a matter of can it's a fact that it exists. Just because you can't see the geological column in your back yard doesn't mean it's not there, I can go to your back yard with an excavator, dig down to a predefined depth (with a permit of course) and DEMONSTRATE the geological column in your own back yard.

So it is possible that there could be a startling discovery in my backyard that could turn evolution on its head?
Possible? Yes, Likely? No.

But by all means go ahead.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 02:45:33 AM
So it is possible that there could be a startling discovery in my backyard that could turn evolution on its head?

If you find a trilobite giving a Tyrannosaurus Rex a french kiss, please tell us.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: William on November 11, 2013, 02:46:24 AM
Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Interesting that Orta Benga was brought to the USA by a Presbyterian Missionary called Samuel Phillips Verner who purchased Orta Benga from cannibals and then exploited him as a novelty exhibit for money.

The best part of the story is that the lad was identified as a primate and nowdays science knows (with high precision) all humans are primates - just like Orta Benga. Science has certainly improved - which is why we love science  :) 

The worst part of the story is that racists still exist to this day - particularly amongst the religious right who dig for justification of it in their Bible - and find what they seek.  So unlike science there are aspects of religion that haven't improved  :(  :

Quote
Religious Racism: Texas Church Argues There's a Biblical Precedent for Strict Racial Segregation

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/religious-racism-texas-church-argues-theres-biblical-precedent-strict-racial
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Astreja on November 11, 2013, 02:52:36 AM
So it is possible that there could be a startling discovery in my backyard that could turn evolution on its head?

Possible -- But vanishingly unlikely.  You see, Skeptic, many generations of researchers have already explored vast areas and depths of this earth that would make your back yard look like a single pixel on a high-definition TV (if not smaller).  The geological evidence continues to favour evolution by a huge margin.

I continue to wonder why your faith is so utterly dependent upon denying the work of literally millions of biologists, anthropologists and geologists...

...and why you have chosen instead to defend the veracity of a questionable anthology of religious writings, composed by a foreign culture 2000-3000 years ago, in languages you probably wouldn't understand if the authors of the books walked right up to you and started speaking.

You don't do yourself or your god any honour by caricaturing things that make your worldview less comfortable.  At very least, you owe it to yourself to represent opposing viewpoints accurately, so that we can debate them on a more equal footing. 



Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 11, 2013, 02:56:11 AM
The geological column is how oil-mining companies find oil.

Oil-mining companies don't care about ideology.  They only care about what will get them their oil, and thus their money.

Interestingly, they tend to hire people who know how to interpret geology, rather than YECs.

They have no ideological reason to prefer the former over the latter.  They only care about money.

Old-Earth geologists find it for them, using stuff like consistent geological strata.  For example, old sandstone channels that were once riverbeds can be traced deep under the Earth using seismic imaging.  These can and often do host oil, depending on the nature of the rock above and beside the old channel.  This can be tens of kilometers under the surface of the Earth, and old-Earth geology is how we can figure out where that oil is.

Why don't some of those companies hire "creation scientists" to help them?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 02:59:05 AM
The geological column is how oil-mining companies find oil.

Oil-mining companies don't care about ideology.  They only care about what will get them their oil, and thus their money.

Interestingly, they tend to hire people who know how to interpret geology, rather than YECs.

They have no ideological reason to prefer the former over the latter.  They only care about money.

Old-Earth geologists find it for them, using stuff like consistent geological strata.  For example, old sandstone channels that were once riverbeds can be traced deep under the Earth using seismic imaging.  These can and often do host oil, depending on the nature of the rock above and beside the old channel.  This can be tens of kilometers under the surface of the Earth, and old-Earth geology is how we can figure out where that oil is.

Why don't some of those companies hire "creation scientists" to help them?

The hilarious part is, some of these Oil Company CEOs are self proclaimed Creationists, so they don't even trust their own people.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 11, 2013, 03:01:44 AM
Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.

That's what people like you said a hundred years ago.

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 03:06:58 AM
Just think in 100 years!

The earth could be flat for all we know, NASA could be lying!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 11, 2013, 03:08:45 AM
Just think in 100 years!

The earth could be flat for all we know, NASA could be lying!

And the Sun actually does go up and down[1].

-Nam
 1. Bill O'Reilly faux pas. Nick'll get it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 03:11:26 AM
Seriously though, why do people make these arguments?

"For all we know, there is evidence that disproves evolution here!"

You might as well say

"For all we know, there is evidence that humans are actually bargfabbles on the planet footh!"
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 11, 2013, 03:13:45 AM
Guys, Skep really doesn't believe in a natural world in the first place.  It's all just the imaginings of the "Mind of God".

That's why he can keep making these sorts of arguments.  As he understands it, science really could discover 100 years from now that the Earth is flat, becase "God" might just change his mind in the interim, and that would make the Earth turn flat.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 11, 2013, 03:17:25 AM
When will gravity just be a theory.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 11, 2013, 03:59:42 AM
It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.
The silliness is in the assumption that the eye cannot evolve, that it would not have worked if even one 'piece' were missing, that prior versions of the eye would therefore have been useless, and that the eye would have left fossils to begin with.

Given that we have observed organisms in nature that have a stunning range of working eyes, from simple patches of photosensitive tissue all the way to eyes that are far more capable than the human eye, it is ludicrous to simply declare that no prior version of the eye can possibly have worked.

Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.
Actually, I doubt Ota Benga was used in schoolbooks to begin with.  Not only that, but I think the only ones trying to push him as an example of an earlier stage of human evolution were trying to fulfill some agenda - notably, that their racist beliefs were based on science rather than prejudiced opinions.  Just like you're trying to fulfill an agenda of your own by posting here - to show that your theistic beliefs are based on facts, rather than your own variety of prejudiced opinions.

They sure do like to shout "We got the truth!" when they themselves don't even know if they have the truth.
You mean like you're doing here on this site?  The difference being that you assume you have the truth without having anything in the way of real, verifiable facts to back it up with.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.
Except nobody who actually understands evolution attempts to portray it as an ironclad set of facts that can't possibly be proven wrong.  When people refer to evolutionary fact, they mean that it would take a bonafide miracle to come up with something that could overcome the theory of evolution at this point in time.

You can dream about how evolution might get shown to be false in the next hundred years if you want.  But there is virtually no chance of that ever happening.  Instead, what will happen is that someone will find something that fills in a hole in evolutionary theory, probably with something that nobody foresaw (just as Einstein filled the holes in Newtonian physics with quantum physics).  So it will be 'wrong' (or rather, incomplete), but not false.

There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.
Sure there is.  But why assume that you're going to find that ancient fossilized poodle based on the writings of a book that's only a few thousand years old?  Especially when you yourself have admitted that 'demons' have screwed with every other religion on the planet.  Claiming that yours is somehow exempt is nothing but special pleading.

It's because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere except the textbooks. For example, if I went in my backyard and dug up a T-Rex, would the "Jurassic era" then be in my backyard?

Fossils are found willy nilly all over the place. No way to tell columns and eras from that. My backyard point testifies to that fact.
All this proves is that you're as utterly ignorant of geology and paleontology as you are of other branches of science.

Indeed, it's not only possible to tell geological columns and eras from fossils, it's been done thousands of times.  Just because your ignorance on the subject doesn't allow you to understand how it works does not then make it not work.

The geologic column exists in the Grand Canyon?
That's where they found every fossil?
If it's not where they found every fossil, then where is the column?
As I thought, you don't even know what the geological column is.  You're just going based off of the nonsense from ICR and other creationist websites which use that as a red herring to distract people from the fact that they don't have any actual evidence to support their young earth beliefs.

The real irony is that the geological column was worked out by geologists about two centuries ago.  It's even older than evolutionary theory, in other words.  By the way, it's not a literal column.  It's actually the layering of newer material onto older.  So the geological column is basically the entire crust of the Earth.

If you had the time and money to dig deep down into your backyard, you would start finding fossils.  But we're talking dozens of feet just to find relatively recent fossils (from tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago).  Think hundreds of feet to get into the dinosaur era, millions of years ago.  You aren't going to get there with a pick and spade.

So it is possible that there could be a startling discovery in my backyard that could turn evolution on its head?
Sure.  Anything is possible.  But the likelihood is practically nonexistent.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 11, 2013, 04:15:27 AM
If you had the time and money to dig deep down into your backyard, you would start finding fossils.  But we're talking dozens of feet just to find relatively recent fossils (from tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago).  Think hundreds of feet to get into the dinosaur era, millions of years ago.  You aren't going to get there with a pick and spade.

Depending on where he lives, this may not be true.  For example, in my back yard there is an outcrop of solid, deformed granite.  Any fossils that existed in the rock here, which - given the age - would have been no more than bacterial mats, would have been destroyed by the granite's intrusion and subsequent deformation.  If he lives in such an area, then no amount of digging in his back yard will ever yield a single fossil.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 04:18:24 AM
Depending on where he lives, this may not be true.  For example, in my back yard there is an outcrop of solid, deformed granite.  Any fossils that existed in the rock here, which - given the age - would have been no more than bacterial mats, would have been destroyed by the granite's intrusion and subsequent deformation.  If he lives in such an area, then no amount of digging in his back yard will ever yield a single fossil.

He could dig past the core perhaps? */joking*
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 04:31:24 AM
Depending on where he lives, this may not be true.  For example, in my back yard there is an outcrop of solid, deformed granite.  Any fossils that existed in the rock here, which - given the age - would have been no more than bacterial mats, would have been destroyed by the granite's intrusion and subsequent deformation.  If he lives in such an area, then no amount of digging in his back yard will ever yield a single fossil.

He could dig past the core perhaps? */joking*
*shifty eyes* or are you.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 04:38:33 AM
Darn you!

You found out my plan to destroy the earth by digging to the core then detonating a 50 megaton bomb!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 04:49:01 AM
lawl Yep that was the intent ;)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 04:56:28 AM
You will never catch me alive!
...
That...and you don't know my address...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 11, 2013, 05:02:01 AM
True, there is that, but you forget, I specialize in computers ;P
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 11, 2013, 05:06:07 AM
Oh crap! My IP address!

Okay...i think that is enough off-topic role-play for today...

*satire*
I disagree with EVILution because if we came from monkees, why iz thar still monkees?
*/satire*
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: jaimehlers on November 11, 2013, 09:21:49 AM
Depending on where he lives, this may not be true.  For example, in my back yard there is an outcrop of solid, deformed granite.  Any fossils that existed in the rock here, which - given the age - would have been no more than bacterial mats, would have been destroyed by the granite's intrusion and subsequent deformation.  If he lives in such an area, then no amount of digging in his back yard will ever yield a single fossil.
Ah?  I didn't know that.

So maybe he has a big piece of granite in his backyard instead of fossils.  Good luck for him finding that T-Rex skeleton, then.  Not that he'd likely find one to begin with - his assumptions about geology are staggeringly inane.  Chalk that up to another thing that God forgot to include in the Bible, I guess.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 11, 2013, 11:07:04 AM
Parking places makes a good point.

Why does god seem to only get to countries that, gosh, Christians spread to?

Because that is how God wanted his message to be spread: by his followers who believe in Him out of their own free will.

I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not. You will have to ask God. This is basically an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't know why God does things in a certain manner doesn't mean that there is no reason why God does things a certain way.

Imaginary things (such as the alleged God "Yahweh") can't do anything. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this deity. Yet (by your own admission) you cannot demonstrate any such a things actually exists or that the word "God" refers to anything that actually exists in actual reality. Thus, your argument is moot. From the start, you've been making extended assumptions regarding your theology and those assumptions are unwarranted and unjustified. You cannot assume your position. Just like everybody else, you need to DEMONSTRATE IT. Otherwise, there is no reason to take you seriously.

The Arguments from Incredulity are all yours Mr. "Goddidit" for everything you don't understand.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 11, 2013, 11:09:11 AM
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.

Prove it, or stop claiming it.

Anybody can claim anything. It is meaningless until you can demonstrate your claims.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 11, 2013, 11:16:03 AM
Name ONE scientist and link to the exact video or article of them claiming this.

Good luck.

I now understand the mentality that atheists take everything literally. They do this for the Bible, and just did it for my post.

I did not literally mean they shout that out. It was hyperbole.

Oh no, you've pegged non-believers all wrong. We don't take the bible literally. It's all metaphor and fiction. Take the resurrection for example, totally not literal! Sorry dude, you're wrong again.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 11, 2013, 11:18:30 AM
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to.  For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.
Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more.  Well, the ignorant I suppose.

You fail to understand the point. It's either a mousetrap, or it's not. If you want to use a mousetrap and only have a wooden board, you'll be catchin' a whole lot of nothin'.

Go meet the challenge of the OP and you might not be making ignorant statements like this. You are showing your ignorance with every word you write.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 11, 2013, 11:23:31 AM
It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

You have already answered yourself here, Shep.

Just because you personally can not think of a reason doesn't mean there is no reason.

I am not big on arguments from incredulity.

You know you are talking about subjects you know nothing about.

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

What qualifications do you have in these subjects, Shep?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 12, 2013, 05:33:55 AM
One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.
Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.
It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

No, an eye would be useless if it was just and eye, lying around in the environment.

An eye cannot evolve when it is detached from an animal, because it requires a blood supply, ovary, digestive system, brain, .... and well, a whole animal to be attached to.

By analogy, a mouse trap cannot just lie around in the environment, unsupervised, unbaited, and without motive.

By analogy, a mouse trap would have to be attached to a larger animal, such that the base of the mouse trap was perhaps the side of the animal, or its tongue.

If the original base of the mouse trap was the animal's tongue, then the base of the trap worked, without any other parts.



Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Fiji on November 12, 2013, 05:53:56 AM
^^ Funny thing about the eye argument ... Darwin himself debunked it nearly a century and a half ago ... and creationists are still bringing it up.  &)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Illuminatus99 on November 12, 2013, 01:04:46 PM
We have eyes that aren't nearly as capable as other eyes in the animal kingdom let alone what a fully functioning eye could be capable of.

We don't need a single fossil or even DNA evidence to show how eyes evolved. We can see it in existing animals going all the way back to jellyfish that have spots on their body that register light and dark. No lens, no iris, no cornea,no cone or rod cells, just a spot attached to a nerve that allows the jellyfish to move toward or away from light which gives it a huge advantage over animals with no eyes. We can even see different examples of how eyes can evolve from those simple spots with some having a single lens and lots of cells in the retina to eyes with a lens covering every retinal cell to resolve images.

Even the human eye is still evolving. Unlike most mammals we can see red because the leaves that earlier primates ate were red if they contained more nutrients. A random mutation that gave them an extra copy of the gene that produces one of the color sensing cells allowed them to see a bit into the red part of the spectrum. This gave them a small advantage but it's something that natural selection can select for and refine. They kept that extra gene and while the original one didn't change, natural selection selected for mutations in the new gene that made the eye better at seeing red. Fast-forward to now and it's happening again, a relatively new mutation in the genome produces a second copy of the gene for making the red sensing part of the eye. It mostly shows up in women in some cases allows them to see a bit more of the red part of the spectrum than the rest of us. It'll probably die out if it doesn't confer an advantage but if it were better for reproduction or survival to see into the infrared then natural selection would refine it and in a few million years we'd be able to see heat like vipers and some insects

This is a classic example of the scaffolding evolution uses to develop new abilities and how new information is added to a genome. It starts as an extra copy of a gene and works from there. It can also work the other way around like in the fused chromosomes we have that are unfused in chimps, that's why we have 46 and they have 48 (skep may even have 47)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Illuminatus99 on November 12, 2013, 01:08:27 PM
^^ Funny thing about the eye argument ... Darwin himself debunked it nearly a century and a half ago ... and creationists are still bringing it up.  &)

Not a big surprise, when your goal is to deny anything that conflicts with your interpretation of the bible it takes a long time for them to come up with an interpretation that makes it look like the bible said it from the start.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Illuminatus99 on November 12, 2013, 01:40:17 PM
Skep, here's a good example of how the scientific method works.

Based on analysis of his posts I hypothesize that skep is one of three things, a troll, extremely ignorant, or not intelligent enough to understand the logical processes that go with critical thinking. My prediction is that he is not likely to reveal which one it is himself. The evidence appears to lean more toward a lack of intelligence, as an ignorant person that's confident in their position would not have difficulty with learning about their opposing viewpoint and would be willing to change their position if it becomes untenable, and a troll or POE would likely have been discovered by now since the more posts one makes the chances of them slipping and getting caught increases. He has two real options going forward.

1. Admit to being a troll now and request mercy from the moderators since punishment may be more severe if he continues to waste everyone's time and effort to teach.

2. Prove his ability to learn by fulfilling the OP in order to show that he is intelligent and capable enough to understand it.

If one of those two scenarios are not proven to be correct in a timely manner (his next post will reveal quite a bit whether he wants it to or not). Then we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that he may have a learning disability of some sort or is simply unwilling to learn. If he has difficulty grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method then we should make an effort to slow down and help him find the resources he needs to catch up. If he's just unwilling to learn then he should be asked to find a forum with more people that agree with his worldview that's more tolerant of closed-mindedness and willing to accept claims on faith.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 13, 2013, 10:21:16 PM
At this point it's kinda hard to tell if he is a troll, though I'm leaning in that direction. His lack of willingness to accept anything that contradicts his views is pretty telling.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 14, 2013, 01:18:29 AM
They are all like that. We would have to formulate a proposition that all Creationists were trolls.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 14, 2013, 02:46:16 AM
I agree with Add Homonym, he isn't a troll.

Its just that theists are so stubborn and ignorant, that if you say anything that doesn't sound right to them, they go "LALALALALA CANT HEAR YOU, CANT HEAR YOU!!!!" like a four year old...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 14, 2013, 03:32:19 AM
I know too many people like that, and the only real way to deal with them, is to walk away.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 14, 2013, 06:33:47 AM
Skep, here's a good example of how the scientific method works.

Based on analysis of his posts I hypothesize that skep is one of three things, a troll, extremely ignorant, or not intelligent enough to understand the logical processes that go with critical thinking. My prediction is that he is not likely to reveal which one it is himself. The evidence appears to lean more toward a lack of intelligence, as an ignorant person that's confident in their position would not have difficulty with learning about their opposing viewpoint and would be willing to change their position if it becomes untenable, and a troll or POE would likely have been discovered by now since the more posts one makes the chances of them slipping and getting caught increases. He has two real options going forward.

1. Admit to being a troll now and request mercy from the moderators since punishment may be more severe if he continues to waste everyone's time and effort to teach.

2. Prove his ability to learn by fulfilling the OP in order to show that he is intelligent and capable enough to understand it.

If one of those two scenarios are not proven to be correct in a timely manner (his next post will reveal quite a bit whether he wants it to or not). Then we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that he may have a learning disability of some sort or is simply unwilling to learn. If he has difficulty grasping the concepts of evolution and the scientific method then we should make an effort to slow down and help him find the resources he needs to catch up. If he's just unwilling to learn then he should be asked to find a forum with more people that agree with his worldview that's more tolerant of closed-mindedness and willing to accept claims on faith.

I have read carefully all of Shep's posts and I don't think he is a troll. His viewpoint is consistent in itself, it just has no relation to reality. He might or might not be as unintelligent as he appears. The problem is that he has painted himself into a corner which prevents him from admitting that he does not know what he is talking about. He does not want to learn anything. When I asked him about his qualifications, he would not answer. The most important task is to get him to acknowledge his own ignorance of reality.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 14, 2013, 12:01:54 PM
That is, if he comes back...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Nam on November 14, 2013, 01:35:29 PM
Is this topic done yet?

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 14, 2013, 04:33:14 PM
That is, if he comes back...

I would like to say that I put sufficient pressure on him to make him ask himself serious questions, but I doubt it. At least I cornered him several times.

I am beginning to get a bit frustrated with these online debates now. I am finding them too tame. If I continue much longer I think I will just be swearing at every irrational statement. I would much prefer to get Shep in a filmed live debate in front of audience. In a live debate I could really give him the treatment he deserves. Points can be made much better with the right tone of voice and an audience reaction. (Written statements can be misinterpreted too easily as emotional outbursts.) Live debates are for the benefit of the audience, the Christian is just the lamb for the slaughter.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: magicmiles on November 14, 2013, 04:47:25 PM
In a live debate I could really give him the treatment he deserves.

Maybe you could track him down and harass him at his house. Or his workplace. He deserves it, after all. How dare he disagree with you so irrationally and so damned anonymously.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 14, 2013, 05:18:13 PM
Maybe you could track him down and harass him at his house. Or his workplace. He deserves it, after all. How dare he disagree with you so irrationally and so damned anonymously.

I have removed your comment. It is unhelpful.  Just a reminder that the subject is "Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)" This does not extend to descriptions of stabbings nor to personal attacks.

GB Mod
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: magicmiles on November 14, 2013, 05:26:47 PM
Maybe you could track him down and harass him at his house. Or his workplace. He deserves it, after all. How dare he disagree with you so irrationally and so damned anonymously.
I have removed Foxy Freedom's comment. It is unhelpful. GB Mod

Is that what drives your vicious obsession with Skeptic? You're worried he might try to stab somebody's demon out of them?

In another thread you used the term 'inherently evil'. I asked you if you believed in inherent evil and you haven't responded, so I'll ask it again here.

My apologies: your post has become the victim of friendly fire. I hope Foxy Freedom will see fit to answer your point on "inherent evil" GB Mod


Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 14, 2013, 06:28:13 PM

Is that what drives your vicious obsession with Skeptic? You're worried he might try to stab somebody's demon out of them?


I have removed your comment. It is unhelpful.  Just a reminder that the subject is "Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)" This does not extend to descriptions of stabbings nor to personal attacks.

GB Mod
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 14, 2013, 06:44:11 PM
Maybe you could track him down and harass him at his house. Or his workplace. He deserves it, after all. How dare he disagree with you so irrationally and so damned anonymously.
I have removed Foxy Freedom's comment. It is unhelpful.

GB Mod


Is magicmiles the religious fanatic who stabbed and wounded your friend?

No?

Then why did you advise him to control himself? My apologies: your post has become the victim of friendly fire. GB Mod
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Graybeard on November 14, 2013, 06:58:03 PM
Foxy Freedom,

Please refrain from gratuitous taunting or personal attacks. If personalities become intolerable, it is best to take a break.

GB Mod
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: magicmiles on November 14, 2013, 06:59:04 PM
Maybe you could track him down and harass him at his house. Or his workplace. He deserves it, after all. How dare he disagree with you so irrationally and so damned anonymously.
I have removed Foxy Freedom's comment. It is unhelpful. GB Mod

Is that what drives your vicious obsession with Skeptic? You're worried he might try to stab somebody's demon out of them?

In another thread you used the term 'inherently evil'. I asked you if you believed in inherent evil and you haven't responded, so I'll ask it again here.

My apologies: your post has become the victim of friendly fire. I hope Foxy Freedom will see fit to answer your point on "inherent evil" GB Mod


Well, I guess my question isn't on topic really either. I don't mind just dropping it, although it would appear likely the discussion on evolution in this thread has probably run its course.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 14, 2013, 07:06:17 PM


Is magicmiles the religious fanatic who stabbed and wounded your friend?


You are not allowed to ask that. This thread is about creationism.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 14, 2013, 07:16:33 PM
Foxy Freedom,

Please refrain from gratuitous taunting or personal attacks. If personalities become intolerable, it is best to take a break.

GB Mod


If you have something to say about a moderator's comment, use the PM system. A mod's comment is not open to public discussion GB Mod

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 14, 2013, 07:34:05 PM


Is magicmiles the religious fanatic who stabbed and wounded your friend?

You are not allowed to ask that. This thread is about creationism.

Feel free to answer in a PM.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Foxy Freedom on November 14, 2013, 09:34:58 PM
Just to let you know that I found this site interesting. I learned a lot about the religious mentality by closely following some of the individuals and discovering how they think. It will be useful to me in live debates.

Goodbye mm. No worries as they say in oz.

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: magicmiles on November 14, 2013, 10:08:15 PM
Fare thee well. Maybe you can track down VenomFangX and debate him in front of a live studio audience.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 14, 2013, 11:28:00 PM
Do you agree with common descent as described by evolutionary biologists?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: magicmiles on November 14, 2013, 11:32:37 PM
Median, who are you addressing?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 14, 2013, 11:39:35 PM
Median, who are you addressing?

Anyone who reads and understands the question.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on November 15, 2013, 01:55:05 AM
Do you agree with common descent as described by evolutionary biologists?

I agree with them. ;D
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 15, 2013, 02:33:30 AM
Fare thee well. Maybe you can track down VenomFangX and debate him in front of a live studio audience.
It would be a waste of anyone's time and effort to debate that clown, he couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.
His knowledge of evolution matches my knowledge of Quantum Physics (re: None)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Mrjason on November 15, 2013, 06:50:33 AM
Do you agree with common descent as described by evolutionary biologists?

I think so. It looks statistically likely[1]
 1. http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/life-single-common-ancestor.htm (http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/life-single-common-ancestor.htm)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: wright on November 15, 2013, 01:02:47 PM
Do you agree with common descent as described by evolutionary biologists?

It fits the fossil record, it fits the genetic evidence, it fits the observed anatomical similarities in different animals. So, yes.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 15, 2013, 05:34:19 PM
Do you agree with common descent as described by evolutionary biologists?
With all the evidence pointing to it, I'd be a fool not to.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 15, 2013, 06:15:31 PM
Of course, I posted that question right after MMs' tangent, and he even asked me who it was directed toward (which included him). Notice how he completely ignored the question after that. Yeah...pretty funny.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 15, 2013, 06:29:17 PM
The TOE is the best explanation we have for the present-day and past era diversity of life forms, for at least three reasons: 

--all the available evidence so far (in fields as distinct as genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, botany, physical anthropology) supports it;

--it works in real life applications like CSI, epidemiology and agriculture;

and

--predictions based on it (like the discovery of DNA, the physical locations of fossils and the genetic differences between chimps and humans) have been upheld by investigation.

If it could be falsified very easily with common sense, it would have been done by one of the many scientists who challenged Darwin's big idea back in the 1800's. They tried to falsify it, and attempts to solve the problems they found with the theory have led to new discoveries that expanded the useful applications of the TOE.

We are far less likely to be tricked by a "Piltdown Man" hoax today, because we have studied and classified so many thousands of primate skulls, jaws, teeth, etc. We know what the remains of a monkey, gorilla, chimp, baby human and prehistoric human look like. We are less likely to mistake a juvenile chimp skeleton for a short elderly prehistoric human and vice versa.

If it just needed better technology to falsify it, it would have been done by one of the many 20th and 21st century scientists vying for Nobel Prizes, genius grants, PBS shows, TED talks and other forms of contemporary nerd recognition.

As it stands, you only need to discover one thing out of order-- like the fossilized remains of a chihuahua eaten by a T-rex,  or a 4 billion year old rock with flowering plant pollen trapped inside-- it to call the TOE into question. That evidence would have to be examined by every scientist alive, including me, before it could be taken as factual--you would need way more than a few fuzzy photos on a website. It would have to be dated with everything available. New dating systems might have to be developed to test the new evidence.  But realize, every system for dating prehistoric objects that has ever been developed reinforces the TOE.

I am therefore confident at the 95% interval that falsification of the TOE will never happen. But being a scientist means that I have to leave open that 5% possibility that every working scientist in the field has been wrong and nobody has ever caught any of the previous generation's mistakes.

It could happen--and the sound you hear is me not holding my breath.  &)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: magicmiles on November 15, 2013, 06:32:24 PM
Of course, I posted that question right after MMs' tangent, and he even asked me who it was directed toward (which included him). Notice how he completely ignored the question after that. Yeah...pretty funny.

I gnored the question because it wasn't directed specificallyto me. I have insufficient undertanding of science to discuss evolution in any sort of meaningful way.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 15, 2013, 06:34:59 PM
Of course, I posted that question right after MMs' tangent, and he even asked me who it was directed toward (which included him). Notice how he completely ignored the question after that. Yeah...pretty funny.

I gnored the question because it wasn't directed specificallyto me. I have insufficient undertanding of science to discuss evolution in any sort of meaningful way.

You can trust me, MM. The theory of evolution is absolutely true. See my post above.

I wouldn't lie to a hot aussie, esp. after seeing Thor last week..... ;)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 15, 2013, 07:35:57 PM
I have insufficient undertanding of science to discuss evolution in any sort of meaningful way.
I commend you for admitting that, not many theists are willing to admit they don't know something.

EDIT:
Especially people like Sye Ten, who seem to think that to reject gawd is the same as rejecting knowledge.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 16, 2013, 01:04:59 AM
When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.

But they do teach about this-- in history of science classes. That is where I learned about the racist and sexist ideas that used to be considered "scientific". And many of these ideas had a religious basis. Women came from Adam's rib, were therefore inferior to men and could not study medicine or vote in elections. Mental exertion  would damage their female organs and make them go crazy. Black people carried the mark or curse of Ham or whatever, so it was okay to enslave them and treat them as beasts of burden. And since they were from a different species than white people, any mixed race offspring would be sterile like mules.[1]

None of this crap was really scientific, ie based on facts, tested and supported by evidence. It was what people in power wanted to believe. Today, we are careful about using science to tell us what we want to hear-- like there is no global climate change and we can keep on using the environment exactly as we please. Another plastic bottle of tap water, please.

Far from trying to hide the past, scientists learn from the mistakes of the past.  Scientists can't learn about the world by just studying the bible or another old religious text. We have to learn by applying the principles of the scientific method. That is how we know that Ota Benga was a human being, not a chimpanzee.  We know that any criteria used to "classify" African people as chimps or gorillas was incorrect. The fact is that all humans are the same kind of primate, with the same kind of DNA. That is why we know that Piltdown man was a patched-together hoax, not a real prehistoric fossil.
 1. That is where the term mulatto--little mule-- comes from...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: skeptic54768 on November 16, 2013, 07:09:07 PM
But they do teach about this-- in history of science classes. That is where I learned about the racist and sexist ideas that used to be considered "scientific". And many of these ideas had a religious basis. Women came from Adam's rib, were therefore inferior to men and could not study medicine or vote in elections. Mental exertion  would damage their female organs and make them go crazy. Black people carried the mark or curse of Ham or whatever, so it was okay to enslave them and treat them as beasts of burden. And since they were from a different species than white people, any mixed race offspring would be sterile like mules.[1]
 1. That is where the term mulatto--little mule-- comes from...

Whoever fed you those ideas were certainly not Christians.

People who are led by demons would use the "women came from Adam!" as an excuse for their hatred. People who are racist will use the "curse of Ham" as an excuse to be racist.

Christians would never do this. Christians recognize that male and female were created equal in God's eyes. Black people are God's special creatures as well.

Please show me the verse that says "the curse" is making someone black. You won't be able to because it's not in the Bible!

Bigots use the Bible as an excuse because they are led by demons and pervert the Holy Perfect Word.

You will not find the Bible saying this nonsense. Everyone is equal in God's eyes.

Matthew 7:15
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 16, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
Matthew 7:15
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

I believe that's actually a warning against Paul, so you shouldn't quote that one. Proof that it's against Paul can be found in a preceding statement 5:19

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Quote
Whoever fed you those ideas were certainly not Christians.

How do you know? How do you know YOU are a Christian? By your logic, if you have broken any Christian precept, you are not a Christian. And Christians are always forgiven, no matter what they do, so they must remain Christians, after they have accepted Christ.

Quote
People who are led by demons would use the "women came from Adam!" as an excuse for their hatred. People who are racist will use the "curse of Ham" as an excuse to be racist.

They don't have to "hate". Women can be oppressed and wrecked, lovingly. Slaves can be tortured, lovingly, by Christians.

Quote
Christians would never do this. Christians recognize that male and female were created equal in God's eyes. Black people are God's special creatures as well.

I think you are confusing the declaration of independence with the Bible. If the new testament supported this idea, it would have said so, copiously.

Quote
Please show me the verse that says "the curse" is making someone black. You won't be able to because it's not in the Bible!

Please show me where Noah, the most virtuous man in the universe, got the powers to do Satanic curses.

Quote
Bigots use the Bible as an excuse because they are led by demons and pervert the Holy Perfect Word.

You shouldn't be able to use the Bible as an excuse. It should be written properly, so it can't be used as an excuse.

Quote
You will not find the Bible saying this nonsense. Everyone is equal in God's eyes.

I read this with interest in Genesis. However, the God endorses killing and enslaving enemies, so in order to process this, the perpetrator must dehumanize someone he wishes to exploit. God said that animals were not equal, so anyone you have dehumanized, must be an animal. This allows you to stone them for trivial reasons, also.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Azdgari on November 16, 2013, 11:31:14 PM
Whoever fed you those ideas were certainly not Christians. ...

Sure they were.  Christians are not better or worse than other human beings, your bigotry notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 17, 2013, 04:11:31 PM
Whoever fed you those ideas were certainly not Christians.
This line right here shows your integrity, quit claiming that people who don't completely agree with you aren't christian, that's a "No True Scottsman" fallacy.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 17, 2013, 04:52:38 PM
Whoever fed you those ideas were certainly not Christians. ...

Sure they were.  Christians are not better or worse than other human beings, your bigotry notwithstanding.

According to this, nobody who ever did anything that is now disapproved of, like own slaves and advocate for racial and gender discrimination was really a Christian. Although the bible clearly allows for and even orders that such things be done. Racial separation was decreed by god--why else would he have made different races?

Clearly some people were more god-like (look at this picture of Jesus-- he is white, right? So god must be white, too.) and meant to rule over the more animal-like people who should be slaves. And even better if the slaves are taught to be Christians. Saving their souls, even if you destroy their bodies. The slave masters wrote this stuff in their memoirs all the time.

The people who fought against those racist polices were called traitors, anti-American, anti-Christian and communists. By churches full of people praying that slavery or whatever would always be there. Right before the weekly lynching and church picnic.[1] 

The people who made up those racist ideas and made laws based on them and enforced policies based on them were most definitely not "out" atheists. Because atheists were not-- and still are not-- generally given positions of power and influence in government in the US.
 1.   Apartheid was supported until the absolute  bitter end by the very devoutly Christian Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa. These are some of the most bible-believing, constantly praying, god-loving people on the planet.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on November 17, 2013, 05:39:47 PM

Whoever fed you those ideas were certainly not Christians.

People who are led by demons would use the "women came from Adam!" as an excuse for their hatred. People who are racist will use the "curse of Ham" as an excuse to be racist.

Christians would never do this. Christians recognize that male and female were created equal in God's eyes. Black people are God's special creatures as well.

Please show me the verse that says "the curse" is making someone black. You won't be able to because it's not in the Bible!

Bigots use the Bible as an excuse because they are led by demons and pervert the Holy Perfect Word.

You will not find the Bible saying this nonsense. Everyone is equal in God's eyes.

Matthew 7:15
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."


You constantly talk out of both sides of your mouth as if we won't notice. Have you read your bible? Open to Lev 25, Ex 21, 1 Sam 15 (must I go on?). The bible is absolutely filled with places of this alleged 'God' degrading human beings (his alleged 'creation'). There's no problem with owning slaves...but we're all made equal! This is just more of you making excuses for an irrational book you assumed was true and now which you will defend by hook or by crook (backwards thinking).
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 17, 2013, 09:34:01 PM
^^^Not only that, but Christian justifications for slavery in the US and Europe was not just a couple of years mistake. It went on for centuries. And god did not see fit to intervene...

The same way Muslims enslaved people for centuries, with the Quran as justification-- treat the slaves well and convince them to be Muslim and it's all good.

Funny how the slaves just kept on trying to escape, buy their freedom, help others escape, etc. Even though it was clearly god's will for them to be slaves. I guess it was the influence of demons on those pesky slaves. &)
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Graybeard on November 18, 2013, 07:38:55 AM
People who are led by demons would use the "women came from Adam!" as an excuse for their hatred. People who are racist will use the "curse of Ham" as an excuse to be racist.

The Bible is based on the superiority of the Children of God: the descendants of Adam. You only have to look on the way God ordered the genocide of the Moabites, Caananites, Edomites and the Amalkelites. So let us have no more of that "equality" garbage

Quote
Christians would never do this. Christians recognize that male and female were created equal in God's eyes. Black people are God's special creatures as well.

Quote
Please show me the verse that says "the curse" is making someone black. You won't be able to because it's not in the Bible!

Many ignorant people believe that the only slaves were black. This is pure racism on their part. In the 17 and 18th centuries many other nationalities and ethnicities were taken into slavery - it was a punishment at law in 17th and 18th century England.

So, let me quote this: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Gn 9:25).

Quote
Bigots use the Bible as an excuse because they are led by demons and pervert the Holy Perfect Word.

No, people like you, who have never read a bible believe that.

Quote
You will not find the Bible saying this nonsense.

I have just found it - apologise.

Quote
Everyone is equal in God's eyes.

So, you think that women in the bible, who could be bought and sold are equal. Women who could not speak in church and had to be, in all cases, subservient to their husbands?

And let us look at the Racism of Jesus: why did He chose a Samaritan? Well, it was well-known that, stereotypically, Samaritans were all thieving, lying people.

And what did Jesus have to say about slaves? Matthew 25:11 onwards gives us the answer - a parable that ends in "M't:25:30: And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." i.e. You cast them into Hell if you are not happy with them. So there you are: Jesus knows how to treat slaves.

Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Add Homonym on November 18, 2013, 09:36:54 AM
So, let me quote this: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Gn 9:25).

They still used the Bible to justify it, no matter how wrong their reasoning was.

Canaan's bro, Cush, was the father of Ethiopians, and Canaan was a bit black, being Palestinian. Over all, there was a tendency for Ham's children to be blackish, which must have been guilt by association.

Hell of a curse, though. Maybe Noah aimed it wrong, because he was a drunken arsehole. I hope they put it in the Noah movie.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Antidote on November 18, 2013, 08:28:30 PM
Hell of a curse, though. Maybe Noah aimed it wrong, because he was a drunken arsehole. I hope they put it in the Noah movie.
That can't be right, because gawd chose him as a "pure being"
/sarcasm
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on November 20, 2013, 06:12:03 PM
Does purity wear off over time? It must. After the flood, Noah's family were supposed to be industriously re-inventing human society for us.  It would take a lot of time to develop irrigated agriculture, and bury all those fossils in precise evolutionary layers.  You would not think they had time to screw around, what with devising a way to transport the penguins to the South Pole and the marsupials to Australia without a single escape, and all. It should have been a nerdfest of Gorillas in the Mist plus Biosphere II plus Apollo 13. But instead, they went all Survivor: Gilligan's Island Edition plus Girls Gone Wild.

Noah's peeps were the finest, most righteous and upstanding god-believing people on the planet? From the way they acted as soon as they got off the ark--sinning and drinking and daughters having party sex with dad--they might as well have been reality tv stars like that overweight hillbilly family.[1]

Or else everyone besides the Noah family was so incredibly awful that the Magic Sleazy Eight looked good by comparison. Imagine how bad things would have to be before the athiests on this board get wiped off the planet, but Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson's family and the Kardashians make the final cut to be saved..... :o
 1. When Noah's Ark--2014 becomes a reality show, remember you heard it here first. :P
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: 1makesitwrong on December 29, 2013, 07:41:03 PM
I'm new so I will keep it brief.  Skeptic can shoot down everything he can't understand but yet what we don't understand is how god did it?  Skeptic can you please tell me how god did it.  Did he snap his fingers or was it like bender, every time he farted a new universe was born.  If you are going to expect evolutionists to explain something that doesn't fit into your god did idea.  Then I believe we deserve your explanation on how god did it. I don't want to hear it's a mystery.  Please tell how he did it.  I'm tired of science doing all the hard work for humanity and you theists grabbing credit without showing any of the work.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 29, 2013, 08:02:35 PM
I'm new so I will keep it brief.  Skeptic can shoot down everything he can't understand but yet what we don't understand is how god did it?  Skeptic can you please tell me how god did it.  Did he snap his fingers or was it like bender, every time he farted a new universe was born.  If you are going to expect evolutionists to explain something that doesn't fit into your god did idea.  Then I believe we deserve your explanation on how god did it. I don't want to hear it's a mystery.  Please tell how he did it.  I'm tired of science doing all the hard work for humanity and you theists grabbing credit without showing any of the work.

Welcome 1makesitwrong. Good question. But don't expect any answers. "i dunno?" is good enough for them. In fact, that exceeds their standards.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: wright on December 29, 2013, 08:55:42 PM
If you are going to expect evolutionists to explain something that doesn't fit into your god did idea.  Then I believe we deserve your explanation on how god did it. I don't want to hear it's a mystery.  Please tell how he did it.  I'm tired of science doing all the hard work for humanity and you theists grabbing credit without showing any of the work.

Welcome to the forum, 1makesitwrong.

An understandable frustration, but as PP noted, don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Or rather, a satisfactory answer. Having a god to fall back on as an explanation is too handy for some theists: if science can provide an answer to a given phenomenon, then it was their god's brilliance behind it all. If science or logic fails to explain something, then it's their god's mysterious ways...
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: ThatZenoGuy on December 30, 2013, 12:33:08 AM
So has any theist here accurately described the theory of evolution?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: wheels5894 on December 30, 2013, 10:58:44 AM
So has any theist here accurately described the theory of evolution?

Not that I've seen! We seem to have, as usual, gone off on side issues and the theists have ignored the question. I noticed the odd comment about not understading science but there are enough resources to enable a non-science person to understand the process. For example -

New Scientist has a Beginners Guide (http://www.newscientist.com/topic/evolution)

The Natural history Museum has helpful articles (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/)

These ought to be enough to get anyone started in understanding. To be fair, I have problems knowing why anyone would not want to know how we all came to be like we are today - how our world developed. The biblical stories don't really explain anything as they, rather, state facts without any explanation. There's nothing hard to understand and it fascinating.

Come on theists, read the above links to really try to understand this important bit of science.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: nogodsforme on January 04, 2014, 04:48:28 PM
I am going to develop a user-friendly "theory of evolution basics" presentation for my college. I have way too many students like the theists on this board:

--People who wash their hands with soap and water before they eat, without even thinking about how revolutionary and life-saving that simple action is;

--People who expect to live to an active and healthy 75+, even if they have serious injuries and illnesses along the way[1]that would have definitely killed their ancestors;

--People who cook with microwaves, drive a hybrid car operated by a computer to work, and carry more technological power around in their pocket than NASA used to put astronauts on the moon;

--People who watch the old Lost in Space, Jetsons, Star Trek or Dr. Who shows and laugh because we now have everyday objects that surpass 1970's imaginary future;

--People who accept CSI lab analysis as the most accurate and sophisticated method of detecting crime and catching criminals;

BUT WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE, DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS, DENY THAT SCIENCE HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING IMPORTANT OR USEFUL FOR HUMANITY, THINK NOAH'S FLOOD REALLY HAPPENED, BELIEVE JESUS RODE A DINOSAUR, AND OF COURSE, DOUBT THE VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. BECAUSE GOD AND THE BIBLE.

In other words, people who benefit from science in more ways than they can count, and yet want to attribute those benefits to supernatural forces instead of the brains and hard work of  thousands of nerds, many of them atheists. So of course, such people don't see the point in supporting scientific research or having good science/math classes in schools and colleges.

Yeah, dammit, it's kinda personal..... >:(
 1. like pneumonia, a complicated pregnancy, a brain tumor..... or even an amputation
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: median on January 06, 2014, 11:26:22 PM

Whoever fed you those ideas were certainly not Christians.

People who are led by demons would use the "women came from Adam!" as an excuse for their hatred. People who are racist will use the "curse of Ham" as an excuse to be racist.

Christians would never do this. Christians recognize that male and female were created equal in God's eyes. Black people are God's special creatures as well.

Please show me the verse that says "the curse" is making someone black. You won't be able to because it's not in the Bible!

Bigots use the Bible as an excuse because they are led by demons and pervert the Holy Perfect Word.

You will not find the Bible saying this nonsense. Everyone is equal in God's eyes.

Matthew 7:15
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

These are just more assumptions that you've attempted to backup with just more assumptions. Everyone is equal in God's eyes? Read your bible (Exodus ch 21). The condoning of slavery falsifies your claim to 'equality' by this alleged deity (but these writings are by men anyway and we would expect them to condone such things back then). Your term "equal" has no meaning b/c you will attempt to switch it's definition whenever inconvenient to your assumed religious beliefs. There is no equality with your alleged deity. Otherwise this thing wouldn't violate it's own rules (killing it's own 'children' while claiming to love them), have a "chosen people", or only claim to save some but not all. Horse malarkey superstition!
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Ron Jeremy on January 10, 2014, 09:45:34 AM
I've spoken with a lot of creationists recently and I keep hearing that they accept 'micro-evolution' but not 'macro-evolution'.

Could this be visualised by imagining a snooker table completely covered with yellow balls, where a creationist would not accept that the entire table could be changed to red balls, but they would accept that one yellow ball could be replaced by one red ball? And maybe after some period of time another yellow ball could be replaced with a red ball?
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Anfauglir on January 10, 2014, 09:50:50 AM
I don't think so  - they wouldn't regard it as an accurate analogy.  To them, the ball is half covered with yellow snooker balls, and half with yellow tennis balls.  Yellow snooker balls can become red snooker balls, but a snooker ball cannot become a tennis ball, is the way they would see it.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: MadBunny on January 10, 2014, 10:04:42 AM
The best analogy I've seen (sorry can't remember who it was or I'd credit) is that creationists accept 'micro' evolution, where small changes, say dog breeding occur, but reject large change.  If you take change and use actual money it's akin to saying that if you add pennies you'll get small change, but you'll never get dollars or hundreds.

Yet, if you keep adding pennies, you can eventually get to a million dollars. (obviously).

There is probably a fallacy for it, fallacy of large numbers or some such.
Title: Re: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)
Post by: Ivellios on January 11, 2014, 10:53:07 AM
I also like the one where it starts with red text and over the couse of a paragraph it makes 2 'macro' changes to purple then blue using only 'micro' changes.

Thier stance seems like saying: no matter how many drops of water you put in a bucket, it will never hold more than just a drop. Certainly you cannot fill a cup, glass, jar or bucket, one drop at a time.

Edit: This is how the creationist pov sounds to me: Have you ever seen a rock erode? How can you possibly know or prove that it happens? It's just water!!! Rocks are rocks!!! Unless you can take a picture of the exact moment a drop of water erodes a rock you cannot prove that it really happens!!!! Even if it were true, a small drop of water would only move the smallest amount of material!!! There's no way big changes can happen like holes or even cutting a path through an entire mountain range!!!!!!!!!!!!!