A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[Lugnut]

Originally Posted by Tonio

That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them. In reality there is no such thing as randomness in the universe, and it's more accurate to say that events have causes and not reasons. Each event is preceded by a specific series of events, and if some of those preceding events were different then the outcome event would be different. Some events may simply appear to be random because our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events.

It's certainly possible that some intelligence may be causing events to happen in the universe for specific reasons. But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy. That is because the physical universe exists independent of human belief.

Criticisms of evolution sometimes claim to have a scientific basis, but they're really about scriptural beliefs or philosophical arguments such as life allegedly having no meaning. Neither of those has anything to do with whether evolution has any scientific accuracy. If new evidence surfaced that resulted in a different hypothesis about origin of species, creationism would still reject that hypothesis if it didn't fit the philosophical agenda. That's the real problem with creationism - attempting to explain natural phenomena according to what is philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

This is why I wondered where you went. You should post more often. My brain needs the exercise

[tirdun]

Originally Posted by This_person

However, all of the theories are that - theories. They have the same amount of science backing them.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a muddled hypothesis (God fills in the gaps). It has no means of falsification, has no means of experiment, has no research, scientific study or support from any other science. It claims only a few mathematical formulas, debated ones at that, as part of the overall theory and has yet to produce one iota of useful data. Creationism cannot even claim to be a hypothesis. It has no method or testability. It claims it all happened in such a way that is beyond our understanding of the natural universe.

They're all equally supported by this information above.Wait - we all breathe air, too!!!! The final proof!!!!!

Actually, all living things don't all breath air/oxygen. In fact, at one time most living things didn't.

I've looked myself, and can't find that identical connection with primates, horses, whales, and bats (not to mention trees and insects and viruses that must have all formed from that original cell of life).

So this is the level of proof you want? The entire history of evolution, billions of evolutionary changes and adaptations spelled out to you in some kind of web link? I see how your victory works, demand the universe in a bottle then cheer when your opponent balks.

What exactly are you looking for? One fossil? It probably doesn't exist as the breaks between primates and other mammals was not the same for bats or whales. There is an excellent record of horse evolution back to a common ancestor to whales, and some excellent whale transitional fossils. Genetic connections fill in some of the gaps, but eventually it becomes impossible to undo the destruction of time. Want more? Take a college biology course.

By creationism's claim all those creatures evolved into existence from some early "kind" sometime after the flood then died. It demands a rate of evolution that is ridiculous, one which would still be seen rocketing along today. Intelligent Design either demands a God that twiddles with the gears every few thousand years or who destroys a species and replaces it with a similar, but not exactly the same species. This God sounds like my uncle working on his muscle car in the garage. A new carb here, a new exhaust there, never satisfied, never perfect.

no one has ever claimed to know this until you just now.

I've claimed nothing. I've provided some generalized information to answer the original question, expanded it to answer your basic question and asked what YOU wanted as proof. I then proposed what I considered overwhelming evidence and moved on.

Thank you for joining my side of the argument. Your "proof" is as strong as mine!

I'm sorry, you provided something in this thread approaching proof? I've seen nothing from you except repeated claims of victory and dismissal of science.

Yes, science is rarely sure of things because the universe doesn't seem to work that way. Being "unsure" is not, however, the same as "guessing". A scientific theory is a widely supported description of how a process works, see gravity and electromagnetism and thermodynamics for other examples. Under a theory there are mathematical laws, scientific proofs and mechanics to test and study.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by MMDad

This thread wasn't started because anyone has a genuine interest in biology.

100% of the posts in the Religion forum, where a "question" is directed at a disperate group, are not started because of a genuine interest in anything.


Who cares?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tirdun

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a muddled hypothesis (God fills in the gaps). It has no means of falsification, has no means of experiment, has no research, scientific study or support from any other science. It claims only a few mathematical formulas, debated ones at that, as part of the overall theory and has yet to produce one iota of useful data. Creationism cannot even claim to be a hypothesis. It has no method or testability. It claims it all happened in such a way that is beyond our understanding of the natural universe.

That's much of what evolution claims, as well. It is impossible to test evolution as it relates to humans. There is no equation or any testable data as it relates to humans. If that's your definition of no hypothesis, then evolution is not even a hypothesis for humans, either. Humans are clearly a different animal than any other on the planet, so testing evolution with mosquitos is not the same in any way.

Actually, all living things don't all breath air/oxygen. In fact, at one time most living things didn't.

I was referring to your stunning proof that a problem with vitamin C compares us to other primates. I was answering your claim, not making one of my own. It was a joke.

So this is the level of proof you want? The entire history of evolution, billions of evolutionary changes and adaptations spelled out to you in some kind of web link? I see how your victory works, demand the universe in a bottle then cheer when your opponent balks.

I don't want proof. I don't need proof. My point (as repeatedly shown here) is to show you you have NO more proof for your faith in science than I do for my faith in God. You tell me about testable theories, and yet you cannot test evolution on humans. You cannot show a common ancestor for a human with any other species. You guess and ponder and pontificate, but you've got nothing more than I do - an earnest belief in something that has nothing but empiracle data.

What exactly are you looking for? One fossil? It probably doesn't exist as the breaks between primates and other mammals was not the same for bats or whales. There is an excellent record of horse evolution back to a common ancestor to whales, show me and some excellent whale transitional fossils. Genetic connections fill in some of the gaps, but eventually it becomes impossible to undo the destruction of time. Want more? Take a college biology course.

I've taken some. Guesses due to genetic similarities has as much scientific validity in filling in the gaps as God does.

By creationism's claim all those creatures evolved into existence from some early "kind" sometime after the flood then died. It demands a rate of evolution that is ridiculous, one which would still be seen rocketing along today. Intelligent Design either demands a God that twiddles with the gears every few thousand years or who destroys a species and replaces it with a similar, but not exactly the same species. This God sounds like my uncle working on his muscle car in the garage. A new carb here, a new exhaust there, never satisfied, never perfect.

And?

I've claimed nothing. I've provided some generalized information to answer the original question, expanded it to answer your basic question and asked what YOU wanted as proof. I then proposed what I considered overwhelming evidence and moved on.

You provided guesses, just as I did. Your evidence was as overwhelmingly FOR intelligent design as for evolution (which, by the way, are not necessarily different).

I'm sorry, you provided something in this thread approaching proof? I've seen nothing from you except repeated claims of victory and dismissal of science.

I've provided no proof. That was the point of the comment.

But, I do not dismiss science. I trust it will one day prove intelligent design (probably the creationism version of it) true one day.

Yes, science is rarely sure of things because the universe doesn't seem to work that way. Being "unsure" is not, however, the same as "guessing". A scientific theory is a widely supported description of how a process works, see gravity and electromagnetism and thermodynamics for other examples. Under a theory there are mathematical laws, scientific proofs and mechanics to test and study.

And, under creationism, there's a proof too. See procreation for one example. Saying it's not the same as guessing does not make that a true statement. Guessing is, at it's nature, providing an answer of which you are unsure. Providing proof of parts of the guess makes it a good guess, but a guess nonetheless.

Based upon my experiences, I'm guessing I'm right. I can prove creation by seeing that there is a world, heavens and stars and other creatures. So far, my guess is proven correct, but it's still a guess. One in which I have great faith. So much so that I'm offended when people call it just a guess. Sound familiar?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Actually, that claim is neither true, nor consistent with what you're saying You're saying the Bible is a conglomoration of other religions, then saying that the other religions don't have the same stories. Which is it?

The fact is, there are many religions that pre-date the Bible. Those religions have ALL of the stories (among them) that the Bible has. Moses, having been raised as Egyptian royalty, would surely have been educated in these stories. If you're going to imply, imply strongly with the truth! But, that the stories pre-dated the Bible with several other Mesopotanian and Samarian religions only tends to further the idea that the stories are true, if the unimportant details are not.

No there isnt any inconsistancy. I never said the Bible took ALL the beliefs from Religions that predate it, just that it was a conglomeration of different beliefs. (there is a difference).

There are SOME religions, pre-your Bible, that have the same creation story. But there are just as many that dont.

Because of how/when/where you were raised and exposed to, you believe in this particular belief. if you were around pre-6000 years ago (which conflicts with your Bible since it wasnt around) you would have been part of some other religion. Who would have also claimed their creation belief (similiar to yours or not) was just as valid.

The problem with Creationism/ID is it doesnt account for beliefs that do have different Creation Stories, even though they do exist, and are just as valid a belief as yours.

[tirdun]

Originally Posted by This_person

It is impossible to test evolution as it relates to humans.

Really? I suspect you had milk sometime this week... unless you are of recent Asian or Native American descent. Evolution does interesting things sometimes.

Humans are clearly a different animal than any other on the planet, so testing evolution with mosquitos is not the same in any way.

While you dismiss my example of flawed Vitamin C synthesis, it is a perfect example of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees, creatures that we are "clearly different" from, both have the genetic data required to create vitamin C rather than being forced to eat it. Amazingly, we both have broken versions, identically broken versions in fact, which by your logic means that God intelligently designed all hominids to have the exact same broken bit of nonfunctional genetic material.

It was a joke.

It was sarcasm, and telling sarcasm at that. My reply that some creatures don't breathe oxygen was more support for evolution. Such creatures are far less prevalent today, a nice example of environmental pressure.

I don't want proof. I don't need proof.

No, I can see that. You've quite obviously made up your mind.

My point (as repeatedly shown here) is to show you you have NO more proof for your faith in science than I do for my faith in God.

Wait, are we debating the existence of God now? I thought this was about evolution and young earth creationism and Intelligent Design.

You tell me about testable theories, and yet you cannot test evolution on humans.

Of course you can. Changes in rates and types of sickle-cell anemia and malaria resistance are well documented in humans. Small population diseases like Tay-Sachs Syndrome can be traced and examined, the potential for eliminating the genetic keys lies in evolutionary biology.

You cannot show a common ancestor for a human with any other species.

What if we haven't found it yet? What if Africanus is the link? I suppose if we just say "oh well, God stepped in here, so why bother looking" we'll be better off?

Besides, why should I? Will you accept my word that it's a common link? What if the science supports it? Will you accept Hyracotherium as the ancestor of both horses and rhinos? Or Pakicetus, probably Whale - dolphin - hippo, although Ambulocetus is certainly the ancestor to all whales, dolphins and their kin. Perhaps Archaeopteryx rings a bell? You'd probably accept that dogs and wolves are kin, they are pretty much the same species in fact, but how far out does this go? Foxes? Jackals? They all came from Miacis, who also trace forward to weasels, badgers and bears.

You guess and ponder and pontificate, but you've got nothing more than I do - an earnest belief in something that has nothing but empiracle data.

Either you are claiming to have empirical evidence of God or Intelligent Design or you are claiming that thousands of scientists from all over the world for the last, oh, hundred years are making things up without doing any experiments or research. I'd love to see either.

Your evidence was as overwhelmingly FOR intelligent design as for evolution (which, by the way, are not necessarily different).

They are, by their very definitions, different. Intelligent design claims that there are areas in which evolution cannot and has not worked to change species and suggests that some "Designer" stepped in. This is not only not the same as evolution, it violates the very foundation of the scientific method.

I've provided no proof. That was the point of the comment.

I'll agree to the first, I've no idea what your point is.

I can prove creation by seeing that there is a world, heavens and stars and other creatures.

So far you've observed reality, proving that it exists.

So far, my guess is proven correct, but it's still a guess. One in which I have great faith.

Faith is belief without proof. You can have faith in anything you want, whether it is a God who tinkers and breaks things in his creation or that science is just "guessing". Guessing that electromagnetism would make the screen you're looking at right now work, or that transmitting data across copper wires would facilitate communication or that the bacteria in my son's ear would not respond to standard amoxicillin since it had evolved to resist it.

So much so that I'm offended when people call it just a guess. Sound familiar?

Not really, you've yet to offend me.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by tirdun

..... although Ambulocetus is certainly the ancestor to all whales, dolphins and their kin......

Ambulocetus

The landbased "whale" that is the ancestor to modern whales, evolved to a landbased creature (since the hypothesis is life started in the Marine environment) and then evolved/devolved back to a marine based animal.

And one of the prevailing reasons Modern Whales (and their kin) exhibit vestigial limbs

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

No there isnt any inconsistancy. I never said the Bible took ALL the beliefs from Religions that predate it, just that it was a conglomeration of different beliefs. (there is a difference).

I'll grant you that. You simultaneously discounted some beliefs with one breath, then attacked them with the next. You're right, I was wrong.

Because of how/when/where you were raised and exposed to, you believe in this particular belief.

No, actually it's despite that, not because of it.

if you were around pre-6000 years ago (which conflicts with your Bible since it wasnt around)

This has been said on here before - the Bible does not provide such a time table. A single guy (actually, several single guys with several different dates) calculated out a date of creation. In no sense does that mean that's a Christian belief. That is those people's beliefs, and the people who don't look at the math involved.

you would have been part of some other religion. Who would have also claimed their creation belief (similiar to yours or not) was just as valid.

Maybe, maybe not. That's just a guess on your part.

The problem with Creationism/ID is it doesnt account for beliefs that do have different Creation Stories, even though they do exist, and are just as valid a belief as yours.

Well, Intelligent Design DOES account for a number of different possibilities. Each religion/belief may have it's own particulars, but ID doesn't discount those possibilities.

The animated-by-lightening mud theory, ID, Creationism, etc., are all equally valid beliefs, I agree. None of them are testable.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

This has been said on here before - the Bible does not provide such a time table. A single guy (actually, several single guys with several different dates) calculated out a date of creation. In no sense does that mean that's a Christian belief.

There is a reason it comes up on here. 2a and others (i believe Hessian) are Christians, who make the claim the Bible (and stories in it) are (roughly) 5000-6000 years old, since nothing existed before the verses in the Bible, the Earth couldnt have existed before that.

It may not be YOUR Christian belief, but it is definelty a Christian belief, made by Christians, using the Christian Bible to support this belief.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tirdun

Really? I suspect you had milk sometime this week... unless you are of recent Asian or Native American descent. Evolution does interesting things sometimes. While you dismiss my example of flawed Vitamin C synthesis, it is a perfect example of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees, creatures that we are "clearly different" from, both have the genetic data required to create vitamin C rather than being forced to eat it. Amazingly, we both have broken versions, identically broken versions in fact, which by your logic means that God intelligently designed all hominids to have the exact same broken bit of nonfunctional genetic material.

Not so perfect. It can be neither tested through replication (the true test), nor proven through anything but conjecture. If that's perfect proof, than I've got a truckload of perfect proof for you for Creation

My reply that some creatures don't breathe oxygen was more support for evolution. Such creatures are far less prevalent today, a nice example of environmental pressure.

Yep, things change. Is that evolution? Is that "sh!t happens"? Wait, same thing.....

Wait, are we debating the existence of God now? I thought this was about evolution and young earth creationism and Intelligent Design.

In the grand scheme of things, this debate is ID (my brand being creationism) and atheism. At no time will you read me discussing the young earth theory. Evolution and ID can go hand in hand. At it's core, this discussion is the origin of life - for which no one has an answer.

Changes in rates and types of sickle-cell anemia and malaria resistance are well documented in humans. Small population diseases like Tay-Sachs Syndrome can be traced and examined, the potential for eliminating the genetic keys lies in evolutionary biology.

The test would have to lie in getting a human from a non-human species. Minor changes in disease resistance seems very inconsequential to me. Evolution is one species becoming at least a whole different species. No one has been able to conclusively show a link for that with humans. Take a group of monkeys and evolve them into humans, and I'll buy the test.

What if we haven't found it yet? What if Africanus is the link? I suppose if we just say "oh well, God stepped in here, so why bother looking" we'll be better off?

No, I would probably accept it. And, then say, "what about before that?" But, again, then show me in the Bible where it says mankind looked like we look today. I've never read that! Whether a single species changes throughout time is really not something I disagree or argue with. Whether I share an ancestor with a toad - yes, I argue with that.

Either you are claiming to have empirical evidence of God or Intelligent Design or you are claiming that thousands of scientists from all over the world for the last, oh, hundred years are making things up without doing any experiments or research. I'd love to see either.

I'm claiming the 1% of all life that's ever been on earth being here today is empirical proof of God. I'm claiming that the scientists are not making anything up, I'm saying their tests don't test making humans from another species. And, all they've proven is that limiting the gene pool of a species will sufficiently cause enough significant mutations in that species to make it unviable with it's parent or sibling species. But, I've not read that they can replicate a species change for given environment effects. For example, take a group of a species, and divide it into four groups. Take group A and B and submit it to the same environment for a set number of generations, and groups C and D and do the same with different environments. Now, if evolution works as described, the groups A and B will have evolved similarly, and be a new off-shoot species with virtually identical characteristics - able to reproduce with one another, but not with groups C and D (who CAN reproduce with one another). If it does NOT work that way, then evolution is a farce, and the test only proves interbreding changes a species beyond recognition from the parent species.

Intelligent design claims that there are areas in which evolution cannot and has not worked to change species and suggests that some "Designer" stepped in. This is not only not the same as evolution, it violates the very foundation of the scientific method.

I didn't say they said the same things - I said that the evidence you provided was as true for ID as for evolution.

However, the mechanism of evolution could very well be in the design, thus making the two VERY compatible.

I'll agree to the first, I've no idea what your point is.

I said your "proof" was as good as mine. That was my point.

Faith is belief without proof. You can have faith in anything you want, whether it is a God who tinkers and breaks things in his creation or that science is just "guessing". Guessing that electromagnetism would make the screen you're looking at right now work, or that transmitting data across copper wires would facilitate communication or that the bacteria in my son's ear would not respond to standard amoxicillin since it had evolved to resist it.

Yes, guessing. We used to guess that the model for the atom was the plum-pudding model. Then, we have the Bohr model. Certainly, there could be no sub-atomic particles. Oh, wait.... Yes, guessing.

Not really, you've yet to offend me.

Annoyed? You're certainly not calm about it.

There's more than one possibility, and to preclude an idea that's been around for several millenia because humans can't own and classify it is not a rational way to think.