Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 300 (281878)
01-26-2006 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by pianoprincess*
01-26-2006 9:50 PM


I have yet to see a 'missing link' for starters.
Of course not. If you could see the "missing link," it wouldn't be missing anymore.
Why is it not scienc? because it is not observeable? Neither is evolution.
When I was first reading this sentence, I was worried you were going to finish by saying that you haven't seen evolution take place. I'm glad to see that you followed with a different, albeit equally unfounded, statement.
2ndly, we do have physical evidence. We have the same evidence that you do, we just interpret it differently because we have different presuppositions.
That is the problem with Creationism/ID: presuppositions. Read my signature. Darwin came to the conclusion of evolution AFTER looking at the evidence. Creationists/ID Theorists START with the conclusion, and then try to prove it through misinterpretations of the evidence.
Trék

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-26-2006 9:50 PM pianoprincess* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:50 PM Jon has replied

wiggems
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 300 (281923)
01-27-2006 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


The argument that God cannot have always existed, or God could not have created himself, which defies logic could be argued in any theory. In The big bang theory, or whatever theory you believe, you must belive that either:
A. Something was created from nothing (God or rock)
or
B. Somthing has always existed (God or rock)
Many people like to bring up a law taught in thermal dynamics which states "mass cannot be created or destroyed" to some degree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 168 of 300 (281934)
01-27-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by eevans
01-26-2006 11:48 PM


Re: Intelligent Design Video
The videos are about an hour, a bit long. Can you summarize the content and tie them in to the topic of this thread?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by eevans, posted 01-26-2006 11:48 PM eevans has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Brad McFall, posted 01-27-2006 12:29 PM Percy has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 169 of 300 (281980)
01-27-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Percy
01-27-2006 8:14 AM


Re: Intelligent Design Video
I am about 2/3 rds through the first video. It seems to be saying that the form of the strucuture of evolutionary theory is not valid in part because the charms of life (beak vs individual bird) while possibly selected in a whole are not the whole nor the hole in the material (foundation) of life.
Quoting Darwin with "more complex changes" than caused by electricity and heat on the WALL of cell is implicated as a false statment. This proposition in the first video could indeed be true as it may be unknown biophysics than simple biochemsitry that affects the changes BETWEEN cells.
The second video depends on a better "deconstruction" of the word 'system' than I am able to write currently, eventhough I suspect such is indeed a present capability of humans rather than monkeys.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-27-2006 01:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 01-27-2006 8:14 AM Percy has not replied

pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 300 (282085)
01-27-2006 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by NosyNed
01-26-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Missing links
This statement isn't one you can make. That is because you have no real idea of what evidence there is. If you know about .01 % of it I'd be surprised.
What you can say is: "I know so little about this that I can allow myself to conclude what I want as long as I don't learn about it."
You certanly must be familar with the term "missing link"??
And also, don't say things about people you know absolutely nothing about.
Thirdly, If you're willing to discuss this with me, then I'd be more that happy to. But until you do something other than take cheap shots at me and christians in general I'm really going ot stop replying to your posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2006 10:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ramoss, posted 01-28-2006 8:20 AM pianoprincess* has not replied
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 10:21 AM pianoprincess* has not replied

pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 300 (282086)
01-27-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Jon
01-26-2006 11:51 PM


That is the problem with Creationism/ID: presuppositions. Read my signature. Darwin came to the conclusion of evolution AFTER looking at the evidence. Creationists/ID Theorists START with the conclusion, and then try to prove it through misinterpretations of the evidence.
Evolutionsist also have prsuppositions. Everyone does. Evolution presupposes that there is no God.Of course not. If you could see the
"missing link," it wouldn't be missing anymore.
har har!! lol you know what i mean. They are missing because half ape men and the like don't exist and they never have. if they did where are the fossils?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 11:51 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Asgara, posted 01-27-2006 11:51 PM pianoprincess* has not replied
 Message 173 by jar, posted 01-28-2006 12:00 AM pianoprincess* has not replied
 Message 174 by Jon, posted 01-28-2006 4:29 AM pianoprincess* has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 172 of 300 (282087)
01-27-2006 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by pianoprincess*
01-27-2006 11:50 PM


Actually hun, evolution says nothing about a god one way or another. Many scientists are christian or other religions, and many many christians have no problem with evolution.

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:50 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 173 of 300 (282089)
01-28-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by pianoprincess*
01-27-2006 11:50 PM


actually you're totally wrong there...
as you've been told.
Evolutionsist also have prsuppositions. Everyone does. Evolution presupposes that there is no God.
Nonsense. Many, if not most Christians not only support the Theory of Evolution, they are the front line in opposition to the teaching of Biblical Creationism or ID. From this link which I've given you before, over 10,000 Christian Clergy say
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
There is no conflict between the TOE and Christianity, however if ID were proven it would then mean that there is no GOD.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:50 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 300 (282110)
01-28-2006 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by pianoprincess*
01-27-2006 11:50 PM


About God and religious compadability with evolution, I agree with what Asgara and jar said.
As for the missing links, just because we have not reconstructed EVERY single evolutionary path of EVERY single creature on Earth (and we may very well NEVER be able to do so), does not mean that the theory as a whole is incorrect. We state gravity as a law, despite the fact that we have yet to visit EVERY body in space to check if it exhibits gravitational properties. And even if we were to find ALL the evidence, Creationists/ID Theorists would STILL claim they wanted to see the missing link, whether it existed or not. It's quite simple actually: a lack of evidence for is not evidence against.
Evolution is the same way. Just because we don't have ALL the evidence at hand, does not mean that the evidence we do have is insufficient to form a theory. If I am correct, Darwin formed his theory on evolution mostly by looking at LIVING creatures (remember the finches?) and only the occasional fossil.
And what are these "ape-men" to which you refer? There are no such thing. Neanderthals have been found, as have other "pre-homo sapien" "missing links." Not to mention those fossils found for other animals.
And read my signature about Darwin coming to the conclusion AFTER looking at the evidence. Darwin's presupposition was as a Christian.
Trék

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:50 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 175 of 300 (282118)
01-28-2006 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by pianoprincess*
01-27-2006 11:46 PM


Re: Missing links
There really is no such thing as a 'missing link'. All morphology changes are small. If a intermediatry form is found between two species, all you get is two other 'gaps'. The concept of the missing link has been abandoned except for creationists, who do not really understand certain concepts.
Let's use an example. The late era Homo habilus and the early homo erectus is extremely similar.. the early version of homo hablius and the later version of homo erectus have a lot more disimilarities. However,
the early forms of Homo Habilus have much more in common with australopithecines, and the later sample of Homo Habilus have much more in common with Homo erectus.
Since the appearence of modern man on the scene, the bone structure of modern man has been gradulally becoming much more gracile. The earlier
versions are much more robust. (thicker, vs thinner). Yet, although there has been a progressive change over the millenium for the last 200,000 years, we are still considered the same species. Undoubtly,
if a few hundred thousand more years, the differences would be enough to consider the earlier versions and the later versions different species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:46 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 300 (282133)
01-28-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by pianoprincess*
01-27-2006 11:46 PM


Re: Missing links
You certanly must be familar with the term "missing link"??
What you said was "I have yet to see a missing link." If you could see it, how could it be missing?
You've just asked to be shown something that, by definition, you can never see, because as soon as we find it and show it to you, it's not what you asked for.
But until you do something other than take cheap shots at me and christians in general I'm really going ot stop replying to your posts.
I think that would be a mistake, if you're here to learn things. If you're here simply to spew ridiculous arguments, I guess you can do what you like. But you're pretty quickly going to be doing that by yourself if that's your only aim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:46 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Menachem, posted 02-01-2006 7:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

Menachem
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 300 (283078)
02-01-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by crashfrog
01-28-2006 10:21 AM


Re: Missing links
Let's get one thing clear. Evolution is one (and probably the best) explanation of the origin of species. Do not for one second think that evolution changes the Hebrew account of the creation one bit - it only leaves out the missing links - "Divine Intervention" and "Purpose".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 10:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Wounded King, posted 02-01-2006 7:59 AM Menachem has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 178 of 300 (283080)
02-01-2006 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Menachem
02-01-2006 7:50 AM


Re: Missing links
So the Hebrew account of creation is like the Cliff notes of life on Earth. It doesn't go over every detail but it studies the subtext, explains the motivation and discusses technique?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Menachem, posted 02-01-2006 7:50 AM Menachem has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Menachem, posted 02-01-2006 5:09 PM Wounded King has not replied

Menachem
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 300 (283242)
02-01-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Wounded King
02-01-2006 7:59 AM


Re: Missing links
So the Hebrew account of creation is like the Cliff notes of life on Earth. It doesn't go over every detail but it studies the subtext, explains the motivation and discusses technique?
The Hebrew account of creation is the perfect order of appearance of the physical things. Science just confirms this in detail. The "techniques" of creation are unknown to us. The Hebrew account tells us that not all things evolve by themselves - that there is "Divine Intervention" for a purpose greater than just "survival of the fittest" - such as the fashioning of the human to the man we see today.
The Hebrew account says that we are still in the 6th (and final creation period) time period. It is ALL for the enjoyment/pleasure of the 7th time period when the Creator will rest because we will have unlimited enjoyable things to do.
HaKol Le'Oneg Shabbat!
By the way, how come not one scientist can explain where females come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Wounded King, posted 02-01-2006 7:59 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-01-2006 5:17 PM Menachem has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 180 of 300 (283245)
02-01-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Menachem
02-01-2006 5:09 PM


Re: Missing links
they come from two x chromosomes and the genetic default. you do know that female is the default for all gendered species right? animal and probably vegetable (can anyone get me a source cause google is being stupid). what is it about people that they think it's so impossible for females to be natural? no god made them special. crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Menachem, posted 02-01-2006 5:09 PM Menachem has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Menachem, posted 02-01-2006 5:24 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024