Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your reason for accepting evolution
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 61 of 111 (432470)
11-06-2007 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Beretta
11-06-2007 7:12 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
Beretta:
So 'nature', the mindless inventor, knew we were going to eat the bananas and so put the seeds inside for dispersal? Just wondering.
Talking about what nature 'knew' is an unnecessary anthropomorphism.
If you're curious about the evolution of plant reproduction, look it up.
Then you can discuss a subject you know something about.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 7:12 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:25 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 62 of 111 (432471)
11-06-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Archer Opteryx
11-06-2007 7:01 AM


Because the evidence supports it. The theory represents solid science and has enabled--in spectacular fashion, for over a century now--the prediction of new discoveries.
The rules of evolution are simple:
1)Assume evolution
2)Observe a fact
3)Make up a story to fit the fact into the assumption.
Lots of big scientific words are used to make it look smarter but if you change your perspective away from believing in evolution a priori, you will see that anything can be fitted in depending on the extent of your imagination.
As for predictions, for example:
Evolutionists predicted that something like the coelocanth should be found as a missing link. When they found 'it', they jumped to all sorts of conclusions based on the assumption. Coelocanth failed as a missing link when a live one was first found, expelling it from the index fossil family (it still lives) and ousting it as an intermediate when the assumed leg precursors were only fins after all.
Evolutionists see what they want to see over and over again.
Because no other theories exist that can compete.
There is one actually -creation fits the bill perfectly -a supernatural creator created everything and that's why billions of intermediate (should be there) fossils are missing. Only fully formed creatures with fully formed organs, no half-half anything on its way from leg to wing, reptile lung to bird lung, scales to feathers nothing. Why???
Note that I said evolutionary theory is solid science
Facts are solid. Evolution is the interpretation of the solid facts which are better explained by creation.Brainwashing in evolution makes it difficult for people these days to think any other way.
I believe that it is a strong delusion.
has to be accounted for in any theological system
The Bible and creation go hand in hand -the theology fits with reality.Evolution does not go with the God of the Bible. It is an opposing belief system.
It is a great mistake to expect religion to do the work of science, and science to do the work of religion.
But religion that conflicts with reality (the bare facts)is a waste of time.Creation and the scientific evidence fit together -christianity should not be separate and incompatible with science if it is true.I believe it is true and it fits the evidence extremely well.
There are a lot of Christians out there that believe in evolution as the way God created but that is not what God said he did and the two belief systems are in opposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:01 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 8:25 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 8:50 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2007 9:03 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 83 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-06-2007 12:59 PM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 63 of 111 (432472)
11-06-2007 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Archer Opteryx
11-06-2007 7:25 AM


Re: The Banana that Wouldn't Die
I still want to know what the banana evolved from and how we can be sure it evolved at all.Is evolution a presupposition or is it a proven fact?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:25 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 8:18 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 107 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 4:15 PM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 111 (432473)
11-06-2007 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Beretta
11-06-2007 7:12 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
Did 'nature' know that we needed something nice to eat or was the banana a series of fortuitous chance mutations? What did it evolve from and why?
The cultivated banana evolved from the wild banana by a series of fortuituous mutations, some of which produced a fruit more palatable to us and which we therefore selected.
Wild bananas are not particularly good to eat --- they have a starchy flavor and texture, they require cooking, they're not sweet, and, as you can see, they're full of black, rock-hard seeds.
The modern banana, with its sweet flavor, is the result of a mutation discovered in Jamaica in 1836 by a chap called Jean Francois Poujot.
So 'nature', the mindless inventor, knew we were going to eat the bananas and so put the seeds inside for dispersal?
No, of course not. Nature, being mindless, doesn't know anything, and we do not eat bananas with seeds in, but instead eat the mutant seedless variety that we propogate through vegetative cloning.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 7:12 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 111 (432474)
11-06-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:08 AM


Re: The Banana that Wouldn't Die
I still want to know what the banana evolved from and how we can be sure it evolved at all.
See my previous post.
Is evolution a presupposition or is it a proven fact?
It's a proven fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:08 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 66 of 111 (432476)
11-06-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Archer Opteryx
11-06-2007 7:44 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
If you're curious about the evolution of plant reproduction
All I will get is lots of imaginative stories about how this evolution happened with evolution assumed a priori.
I need facts that point away from creation like intermediates that are obviously intermediates not fully formed varieties of things.
Half wing/half leg, half fin/half leg things like that would be good -to show that new genetic information has been added by mutation.Something to show that it is not all imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:44 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 8:43 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 8:53 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 100 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-09-2007 2:44 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 108 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 4:19 PM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 111 (432477)
11-06-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:00 AM


The rules of evolution are simple:
1)Assume evolution
2)Observe a fact
3)Make up a story to fit the fact into the assumption.
Lots of big scientific words are used to make it look smarter but if you change your perspective away from believing in evolution a priori, you will see that anything can be fitted in depending on the extent of your imagination.
You remember how I told you that you shouldn't recite nonsense about things of which you are ignorant?
These lies that you have been taught to repeat are in fact lies.
As for predictions, for example:
Evolutionists predicted that something like the coelocanth should be found as a missing link. When they found 'it', they jumped to all sorts of conclusions based on the assumption. Coelocanth failed as a missing link when a live one was first found, expelling it from the index fossil family (it still lives) and ousting it as an intermediate when the assumed leg precursors were only fins after all.
Evolutionists see what they want to see over and over again.
More stuff that you've made up in your head.
There is one actually -creation fits the bill perfectly -a supernatural creator created everything and that's why billions of intermediate (should be there) fossils are missing. Only fully formed creatures with fully formed organs, no half-half anything on its way from leg to wing, reptile lung to bird lung, scales to feathers nothing. Why???
Another standard creationist lie. There are lots of intermediate forms in the fossil record, as you would know if you'd ever bothered to learn anything about it.
Facts are solid. Evolution is the interpretation of the solid facts which are better explained by creation.Brainwashing in evolution makes it difficult for people these days to think any other way.
... says the man who's been reciting a bunch of silly lies to us without ever bothering to find out if they're true.
Do, please, lecture us on "brainwashing", we could do with a good laugh.
But religion that conflicts with reality (the bare facts)is a waste of time.
Wow, you just inadvertently said something that's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:00 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 9:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 111 (432481)
11-06-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:25 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
All I will get is lots of imaginative stories about how this evolution happened with evolution assumed a priori.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Half wing/half leg, half fin/half leg things like that would be good -to show that new genetic information has been added by mutation.Something to show that it is not all imagination.
I think you mean half-arm, half-wing.
At the top, the hand of an archosaur (the group ancestral to dinosaurs), at the bottom, the wing of a modern bird, and in between ...
Actually, I'm going to ask you to guess. Where would you say the saurians leave off and the birds begin?
Half-fin, half-leg? You mean like Tiktaalik?
You know, you could have found out this stuff for yourself, it's not like it's a secret.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:25 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 69 of 111 (432482)
11-06-2007 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by anglagard
11-05-2007 11:18 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
99.9% (to three significant figures) of all US scientists that actually study life or the earth reject 'creation science.'
The percentage may be relatively small for now but remember this is the predominating paradigm, the consensus of the moment.Science is written and rewritten and rewritten. Consensus opinions in the past have very often been wrong.Numbers in favor of creation as an alternative explanation are rising all the time - maybe it is the paradigm of the future.
Scientists are brainwashed into evolution before they get anywhere in scientific circles and then they build on that same shaky foundation.I know of a few that put their jobs on the line by daring to disagree with the Darwin party line. It's not easy to stand up against the majority opinion but if it makes sense,if it is the truth,then it's worth it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 11-05-2007 11:18 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 8:49 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 111 (432483)
11-06-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:44 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
The percentage may be relatively small for now but remember this is the predominating paradigm, the consensus of the moment.Science is written and rewritten and rewritten.
Yes, and each time it improves. So there's not a snowball's chance in hell that scientists will go back to a Bronze Age hypothesis that they know to be balderdash.
Numbers in favor of creation as an alternative explanation are rising all the time ...
I take it that you have absolutely no proof for this assertion.
Scientists are brainwashed into evolution before they get anywhere in scientific circles and then they build on that same shaky foundation.
... says the man who recites creationist rubbish without bothering to find out if it's remotely true.
Project much?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:44 AM Beretta has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 71 of 111 (432484)
11-06-2007 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:00 AM


Beretta:
The rules of evolution are simple:
1)Assume evolution
2)Observe a fact
3)Make up a story to fit the fact into the assumption.
Wrong again. Someone has sold you a bill of goods that scientific theories work like the creo arguments in your Sunday School: assume the position, observe a fact, rationalize it, then repeat the rationalization until everyone in the club buys into the pretty story. Not so.
I mentioned the ability of a sound theory to predict. This is crucial. Do not overlook it.
A good example of evolution's predictive ability is in the way the genetic relationships of all living things fell out in the way predicted by the theory. This breakthrough--a stunning validation of the theory--has happened just in the past generation.
If creationists has been correct, geneticists in the latter part of the 20th century would have discovered distinct genetic blocks. The genetic material within each block would have shown a great deal of similarity. Genetic material beyond each block would have been strikingly different from the material within--so distinct that no mutations across block boundaries would be possible. These genetic blocks would have corresponded, of course, to the biblical 'kinds' creationists had been predicting for years that science would find once all the data came in.
The data came in. The prediction was wrong.
Genetic discoveries showed the theory of evolution got it right. All living things have a great deal of genetic material in common. Genetic change over time is inevitable. Relationships between species can be traced by the same mechanisms you would use to trace relationships in a family. And of all the millions of living things on the face of the earth, guess which creatures showed the closes genetic relationship to human beings? Apes. Exactly as predicted by the theory.
That's not storytelling. That's data. This ability to predict discoveries is the hallmark of any good scientific theory. And this predictive power of evolutionary theory is all the more remarkable when you consider how very far genetic science had o go when the theory was first introduced.
Genetic science reaped a harvest of data. That data confirmed the theory of evolution and falsified the notion of distinct 'kinds.'
Evolutionists see what they want to see over and over again.
No, they find what the theory predicts they will find over and over again.
Another example of the way the theory proves itself is in the location of transitional fossils. The tracing of whale evolution, for example, was achieved by just such a process. As recently as the 1970s the theory, which said whales descended from land-based creatures, had sparse support in the fossil record. Creationism said, of course, that no land-based ancestors for whales would be found. Since then the fossil has been filled in, and guess what. The facts show again that science got it right and the creationists got it wrong. We can now trace the whale line back through Basilosaurus and other species to Ambulocetus, the 'walking whale.' You can see the forearms evolve into flippers as the back legs and pelvis diminish to the vestiges we see today.
But here's the kicker. How did scientists know where to look for these transitional species? By looking in the strata where the theory said the fossils should be. There they were.
Valid scientific theories predict, time after time, new discoveries that yield solid data. The theory of organic evolution is a solid theory. In fact, it is one of the greatest successes in the history of science.
Once the data come in, it is the creationists who make up the stories.
There is one actually -creation fits the bill perfectly -a supernatural creator
Wrong again. Invoking 'supernatural' causes automatically makes the proposal non-science. This will remain the case until you can tell scientists how they may go about running a test for God.
Read Judge Jones's ruling from the Kitzmiller trial at Dover. It's on line. Jones was very clear: invoking the supernatural makes a proposal religion, not science.
My statement stands: no other scientific theories compete.
I believe it is true and it fits the evidence extremely well.
You are free to believe whatever you wish. But if you intend to make a scientific case, you have to do all the things that will make science out of it. This means more than telling stories.
You need data. You can either predict it or produce it. Your choice.
Otherwise you offer nothing any different than I do, scientifically speaking, if I say the universe was created three minutes by Hello Kitty. I can account for all phenomena by referring to my Hello Kitty theology. My arguments will be irrefutable. I can say over and over again how reasonable I think my Hello Kitty belief is. I can accuse anyone who fails to adopt it of discrimination and idolatry. But the fact remains: Hello Kittyism will never be taught in a science class. It has no place there because, free as I am to believe it, the idea is not science.
Hello Kittyism is not science because no one can predict anything based on it. Does Hello Kittyism tell anyone where to look for a transitional fossil? No. Does it predict the new creative acts Hello Kitty will perform tomorrow? No. It is a just-so story. Just like your story.
If you intend to take your beliefs out of the realm of religion and turn them into science, you need to do more than tell a story. You need to make predictions that can be tested.
If you need suggestions, here are a few things scientists have been asking creationists for:

1. define the genetic barrier that determines 'kinds' and prevents evolution;
2. describe how to run a test for God;
3. describe the process by which coal, shale, limestone and marble form in water over the course of a year.

When you can do any of these things, come back and start a thread. If you need more ideas for ways to turn your beliefs into real science, just ask.
_____________
Edited by Archer Opterix, : evolving text.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing creation.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:00 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 111 (432485)
11-06-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:25 AM


Re: evidence and assertions
Evolutionists see what they want to see over and over again.
Yes. This is because what we want to see actually exists.
That's how we know we're right.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:25 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 111 (432486)
11-06-2007 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:00 AM


The rules of evolution are simple:
1)Assume evolution
2)Observe a fact
3)Make up a story to fit the fact into the assumption.
This simplistic view is true of all belief systems, it is particularly true of all the creationist nonsense that gets published: assume your conclusion, observe a fact and make up a story to make the fact fit the assumption.
It is not true of science in general and evolution in particular, though. Why? Because they work the other way around.
The actual steps are:
1. Observe the evidence, historical, fossil and present day.
2. Make a hypothesis that explains the facts -- all the facts.
3. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis that will test it with further evidence.
4. Look for the further evidence to see if the result validates the hypothesis or shows it to be wrong.
The facts can be summarized fairly simply: all life is constantly changing. There is no species where change does not occur from one generation to another, there is no historical evidence that does not show change in species over time, there is no fossil record that shows the same form in different places and times.
The hypothesis is that this constant change is due to change in hereditary traits within a population from generation to generation, that this is caused by changes at the genetic level (mutations) and differential selection of individuals by natural and sexual selection such that some have higher survival and reproductive success than others.
One prediction is that when ecological conditions change that there will be a shift in the population to match the new conditions or species survival will be threatened.
Another prediction is that when additional fossils are found that they will fit in to the existing pattern of fossils, and that if you concentrate effort where there are gaps in the record by looking in appropriate strata (for the time period and ecology predicted by each side of the gap) that you will find intermediate forms.
Both these predictions have come to pass many many times. The Galapagos Finches are an example of the first and Tiktaalik rosea is an example of the second.
The major difference between creationism and science in general and evolution in particular is that creationism only looks at the evidence that fits its ability to mold a story around it to make it fit, while science in general and evolution in particular look at all the evidence whether it fits or not ... and in most particular emphasis they are looking for evidence that does not fit.
As for predictions, for example:
Evolutionists predicted that something like the coelocanth should be found as a missing link.
Somebody has been telling you falsehoods.
Coelocanth failed as a missing link when a live one was first found, expelling it from the index fossil family (it still lives) and ousting it as an intermediate when the assumed leg precursors were only fins after all.
Evolutionists see what they want to see over and over again.
Absolutely false. Whether it still lives or not (and all living species are different from all prehistoric species, Coelacanth is an order btw as opposed to a species) it still show transitional (intermediate development) form:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/07/070731152131.htm
quote:
A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind, fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs. University of Chicago scientists describe the finding in the July/August 2007 issue of Evolution & Development.
Tiktaalik rosea is another transitional (intermediate) fossil. More keep being found.
Only fully formed creatures with fully formed organs, no half-half anything on its way from leg to wing, reptile lung to bird lung, scales to feathers nothing. Why???
Because evolution works on living organisms.
Your precepts are wrong because you are NOT talking about evolution as used by scientists but argument created by creationists that don't understand or choose to misrepresent evolution.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ubb/

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:00 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 10:54 AM RAZD has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 74 of 111 (432487)
11-06-2007 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2007 8:25 AM


Tiktaalik
These lies that you have been taught to repeat are in fact lies.
In your eyes they are lies, in my eyes they make sense. I start by presuming a creator, you start by presuming evolution. Creation makes sense of all the fossils found in the wrong places according to the geologic time scale.Fossils found in wrong places by evolutionists lie low or a complicated story is woven around them -the only thing that may not happen is to disbelieve the original premise -that evolution happened.
More stuff that you've made up in your head
Not made up in my head - part of history or is the evolutionary memory wiped clean of the coelocanth debacle.It was a missing link like so many others, an index fossil (meaning died out hundreds of millions of years ago and thus used as an age indicator) . As an icon, it failed.It is alive -where has it been for hundreds of millions of years only to be found alive and well in the 20th century?
Claiming that I know nothing or that I sprout creationist lies is only a way of avoiding a decent reply -it doesn't have to be long, it just has to make sense.A proper reply would be nice.
There are lots of intermediate forms in the fossil record
Not really -go to a natural history museum and look for them.Very few and extremely debatable.In time those that are supposed links (for the moment) will no doubt go the way of their predecessors -into the garbage.
Wow, you just inadvertently said something that's true.
Not inadvertent, my starting point actually. I don't believe in religion for the sake of it -if its true, great, if it's not, dump it.Same for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 8:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 9:26 AM Beretta has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 111 (432489)
11-06-2007 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Archer Opteryx
11-06-2007 7:25 AM


Re: The Banana that Wouldn't Die
Some genuine curiosity about anything would serve you well at this point.
But this is just what these people don't have. They are brutally indifferent to nature --- to beautiful, fascinating, complex, wonderful nature.
I think they scarcely live in the real world. Reality, to a creationist, is defined not by observing the world, but by the line of bullshit they find most comforting. The idea of looking anywhere outside their silly jumble of windy words for truth ... does not occur to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:25 AM Archer Opteryx 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