Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution makes no sense
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 63 (13780)
07-18-2002 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
07-18-2002 7:29 PM


"I'll give 10 to 1 that Conspirator lasts no more than a week. Any takers?"
--Jumps! I think someone hit me in the A$$!
--On a more serious note, Conspirator needs to chill out before even thinking about playing his 'game' at this forum. Continuing to act with such pre teen rhetoric and demonstrating this pervasive prejudiced nonsense should be dismissed as, sorry to say, a load of crap.
--But I guess I'll stand by for instant correction on Conspirator's part, A big cattle prod on one hand, and an elementary prerequisite science text book in the other.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 07-18-2002 7:29 PM mark24 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 63 (13848)
07-20-2002 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Conspirator
07-19-2002 8:09 AM


"Ok, fine, I won't keep the debates in here personal.. I know very well how to act in a debate and I know that a person shouldn't take it too personal.. I've been at other message boards debating for about 6 months now and I've had the most experience in Creation/Evolution discussions and I think I know the most about the Creation/Evolution discussion than a lot of other people think..And I'm going to last here for way more than a week..."
--From the looks of your last post, seemingly your experience comes solely by inquiry in the 'Athiest vs. Christian' yahoo chatroom. Either that or a complete lack of experience at all. I'll have to hope that your attitude will shape up a tad, maybe more than just a 'tad' at that. You may have chilled a bit but this post still reveals hints at incooperation, a lack in respect, and no real pervasive interest in discussing but to biasedly uphold your own individual pre-conceived belief as your opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts (whatever it may be). Also, about your comments for how long you will 'last' here. Its not about quantity but quality, if your posts lack quality and are pasted with an overload of ignorant and arrogant commentaries you may 'last' as long as you want to stay here (unless percy kicks you out, and when percy kicks someone out.. there is very good reason). Just some thoughts on my part. Just give us a simple set of data or an argumental scientific approach in questioning, and we may end up having an enjoyable time with the exchanging of ideas, a willingness to learn. And of course as I put it, an 'unbiased scientific inquiry'.
--So lets just forget about these two posts and put some more effort into intelligibly inquiring discussion from this board. Good luck and enjoy the forum (please don't abuse, but appreciate it's even handed moderation).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Conspirator, posted 07-19-2002 8:09 AM Conspirator has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 63 (14510)
07-30-2002 2:29 PM


--Me thinks that while I would love to respond to Conspirators lengthy post, that It would be a futile offering if he isn't going to respond back.
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by John, posted 07-30-2002 6:46 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 63 (14755)
08-02-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mark24
07-28-2002 6:08 AM


I'm thinking that I can't gamble against you on that one Mark, maybe someone can catch him in another more...unintelligable forum. Maybe Dr. Dino has his long awaited forum up and working? It would be a hoot to see the style of moderation on that one.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 07-28-2002 6:08 AM mark24 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 63 (15057)
08-08-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Conspirator
07-22-2002 5:23 PM


--Late, but oh well (sorry, meant to get this reply up earlier, was unable to access the internet for a couple days)
"Furthermore, I don't have a lack of experience in anything that has to do with Creation or Evolution.... Or a lack of respect, either."
--Lets not think we are more intelligent than we really are. I think I know you didn't mean the former literally, however, I do believe even Ph.D'd scientists have a lack in experience in various topics of C vs. E. there are more than enough different approaches to take questions for instance that you may have never heard of.
"It's just that the evolutionists in previous discussions that I've had with them don't deserve my respect because all they do is don't listen to my reasons why I don't like Evolution, try to force their beliefs on me and don't show me any repsect."
--If they do not deserve your respect (whether true or not, and going by what you say) than I guess that means that they don't deserve it. You have had yet to even counter the participants on this board and quickly shout out hatred. This is known as prejudice and has been said (forgive me for my quibble) is not acceptable. Also, you should be weary of what you say, again, the latter most of this quote is exactly what many of the secular world would say of you. It seems that both sides need a bit of a spanking or correction at times, but furthering the problem is just fanning the flame.
"Ok, so you want to know my reasons why i disagree with Evolution? Here they are. Oh, and I don't mind typing a lot of information with one post, so expect me to post alot in one post pretty often in the future. I have no problem whatsoever with posting extremely long posts."
--Just so that you are aware quantity should be equative to quality, which is much more important than quantity.
--Let us now skip the hog-wash and go right to the scientific discussion now, shall we?
"There are no transitional links or intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world."
--Technically according to the Theory of Evolution (and we must make sure we are working in the correct context of any theory), everything is a 'transitional'. The problem you may be looking for is the 'transition'. Of course I have found, however, that Evolution has more than enough flexibility to cope with what is present in the fossil record. After all, it tells the story, there isn't any known direct comparison for a veracious check-up.
"Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occured either in the past or the present.
--What evolutionary development happens today is of no significance to the fossil record, over-all deposition in telling the story of historical development within the realm of the theory takes place over much longer time-periods than 'the present'. Present Evolutionary development is confined to Biology.
"There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world."
--Most certainly expected.
"Natural selection, the driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. It along with mutations is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with each other) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been coded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within the basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. "
--What then is the barrier, and why is it a barrier. Ie, what causes this barrier in evolutionary development.
"Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there."
--A very large misconception. You have claimed that mutations cannot create new genetic potential, however this happens frequently. This is simply what mutation is, altering the genetic code as you stated. However this alteration produces a new sequence of nucleotide bases, which therefore mingles with the structure of an organism.
"Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutatiions impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered."
--Mutations are small, and random, however, are only harmful if the environmental conditions suit it as such. If environmental conditions allowed, that same mutation may have been beneficial. Also, I've seen plenty versions of the common 'wristwatch', but I have seen many of higher quality, yet they all have the same common purpose of doing what they were made to do. Similar is life in that we are all struggling per se for life with various characteristical qualities.
"Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved."
--You've missed the point. How an organism has survived determines the evolutionary development of the population. This includes differentiation from harmful and beneficial directions. The harmful will not survive so you are left with beneficial traits in the evolving population.
"Natural selction can also be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Socially, it argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus, barbarism is demanded by natural selction with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful."
--Slightly, you do take it to unnecessary extremes with your vocabulary though. Also you should use the word 'population' rather than the individual, it works better in the evolutionary scale.
"It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection."
--No it doesn't demand 'total annihilation' of any weaker population, haven't you ever heard of an ecosystem?
"Practically, it has the following and many other inconsistencies: 1. The natural selction process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example."
--Not a good example, see Johns comment.
"It requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived with basic intricate functions such as respiration or reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism."
--Only if required, aerobic respiration in theory evolved very early in evolutionary development.
"Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependant on order cannot be created by disorder."
--You in your(?) comments show a relatively enormous lack in Evolutionary knowledge. It is a system dependent on a sequence, which can be beneficially disrupted of its original sequence into something new.
"Continuing with logical inconsistencies about natural selection... 1. Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. 2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor."
--All Subjective.
"3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow."
--What the heck is the significance of this seemingly very odd looking comment?
"4. While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed such as a baby to its parent and a seed to it tree, the pattern of growth is circular, not simply crude to the developed as natural selection proposes."
--You can explain this one to me as well..
"5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival."
--'cannot be explained if all that do is for survival'?
"6. Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance."
--No, it doesn't directly, see above comments.
"Although evolutionists state that life evolved from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world."
--Another great misconception. It isn't the Evolutionist that states that life evolved from non-life, or that matter resulted from nothing, but the atheist. And humans resulting from animals isn't 'an impossibility of science and the natural world'.
"Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating by chance."
--Subjective until you can present data of some sort.
"The supposed hominids bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of "finds" which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They neither clear nor conclusive though evolutionists present them as if they were. They present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and of the flimsiest of "finds." Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist only of a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionists declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and them placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look iodentical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of honminids.
Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all. They are demonstrated to be extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all, the discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.
The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human, but not something in between."
--I highly doubt your confidence, but I'll leave this section to the those knowledgeable in paleontology.
"The rock strata (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionsts assert."
--While I am a flood proponent, saying that they are 'better explained' is highly and unrealistically stretching it. Flood proponents do have more problems to deal with. I'm not worried with our very short time of hard scientific research in the field of Flood Geology, however I know progression is well under way and a Flood may explain the majority of what I know in General Geoscience.
"A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossiles require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed."
--Not really, your mixing up coal in there somewhere too. Fossilization/permineralization does not require pressures at all, but require isolation from biostructures hazerdous to the destruction of the sample.
"Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time, but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria."
--Disregarding your last unsuccessful rebut, this is why fossilization is known as rare.
"The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having ovvured. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account, but not the evolutionary process."
--I am not going to sit here and type out a report on deposition and flood dynamics but I can assure you that nothing in here shows any sign of significant knowledge in the topic.
"In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years."
--Example with dating documentation? Otherwise I will state that the mainstream has no problem with brief catastrophism.
"I'll continue with answering your questions to this later..."
--Please do, I spent a little bit of time going through your post, I expect the same out of you.
--I also realize the gravity of all replies to your post, so as it pertains to mine, it is fine if you wish to pick something short you may like to go deeper in.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Conspirator, posted 07-22-2002 5:23 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Philip, posted 08-09-2002 4:41 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 63 (15108)
08-09-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Philip
08-09-2002 4:41 AM


"Most of Conspirator's statements (regardless of source) you seem to dismiss as perhaps oversimplified."
--I don't really dismiss them as oversimplified. Rather, I look at the statement made and reply with my thoughts on their degree of veracity. It is as I defended in my post through reason and working within the frame of the theory (something which must be done for any assertion pertaining to credibility of that which you critique to be credible) that his statements and argumental approaches are inapplicable, they are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the theory. True, many of his arguments were highly simplistic in that he made his assertion and then with high confidence claimed that the ToE has been defeated (not his own words). He has made his assertions and I have made mine directly countering his. I find them sufficient until new thoughts are brought in.
"But your responses, like that of many Evos and YECs seem also oversimplified rebuts (like the one I just got from Monck about my not saying anything scientific)."
--I have not read yours and Manck's discussion, however I have no problem with a slight 'simplification' of a reply in argument. As long as there is a willingness to delve further into a certain argument and dissect its validity. In that, I have no problem with conspirator (or anyone else) directing a specific question at a specific reply I have given which shows that I disagree with something that was said, and going further into discussion.
"For example:
Our human physiologies are extremely and fortuitously complex. To state that these could have even possibly evolved from OWM's etc. is bold (albeit metaphysically possible in theory only). What seems impossible in physics is the human evolution of enzymes and their dynamically interactive macro-physiologies:
Take an enzyme, any enzyme (or enzyme families), with its active site(s) and catalytic force vectors so intricately and perfectly arranged; with every atom crucially supporting one another for the active site(s) to be beneficial. Now explain how one simple enzyme could have possibly evolved via physics of selective reproduction/DNA-mutation when its active site seems to require all of its atoms in place A PRIORI (sometimes hundreds of thousands, i.e. in the case of DNA-Gyrase).
That the DNA-sequences could ever code an enzyme via incremental reproductive mutations seems impossible in micro-physics, due to overwhelming randomization forces overcoming any reproductive selection pressures. Sure, an insignificant garbage molecule might mutate, but then into a glorious enzyme? (And yes, enzymes are glorious to our survival and that of all ecosystems)
Any enzymatic mega-molecule (and its so called families), with its catalytic force vectors at its active site(s) seems to require A PRIORI DNA codons via some non-ToE mechanism, regardless of the theoretical possibilities.
On the other hand, A YEC's assertion of ID seems equally improbable, at least from an empiricist's point of view, as you seem to infer. While I accept the YEC's position as easier to believe, because it erradicates the God-of-the-gaps faith-bias altogether, I must denounce the mega-ToE position, too: Since evolutionary reproductive mutations of enzymes seems too impossible for these exquiste mega-molecules.
If you or anyone has information on how an enzyme like a Kinase or DNA-Gyrase could have possibly evolved, please let me know. The ToE (micro nor mega) makes no sense to me here."
--Your inquisition on this example seems likely. However, I am at a low level of knowledge when it comes to specific molecular biologic mechanics so I would have to leave it to those more in-tune with the subject.
"Forgive my intrusion."
--No problem, I would encourage a more branching discussion as it pertains to misc participants in the exchange of ideas.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Philip, posted 08-09-2002 4:41 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Philip, posted 08-11-2002 3:26 AM TrueCreation 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