Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
62 online now:
frako, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Let us reason together.
nator
Member (Idle past 512 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 152 (32873)
02-22-2003 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by drummachine
02-20-2003 10:54 PM


Drum, this is not what I asked you to do.

I wanted you to go to the "evolution for beginners" site and learn the basic mechanics of evolution, and then come back here and explain it in your own words so we could be sure you understood.

I am not asking you to believe ANYTHING, just to UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.

I am still waiting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by drummachine, posted 02-20-2003 10:54 PM drummachine has not yet responded

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 152 (32894)
02-22-2003 8:33 PM


Schrafinator,

The only problem is I cannot agree with evolution. I did exactly what you were aksing. I observed what was being said. I posted some statements that were said. There is no evidence. I just cannot agree because there has to be a creator. We will never understand Jesus Christ until we repent and receive what He is offering. He paid the penalty for our sin at the cross. The bible is history. Not some religious text book. Numerous prophecies have been fulfilled. It is the revelation from the only One who was there in the past. Its not man's ideas. What a wonderful message it is. We can know the creator. He paid for our sins. He is the Messiah. The Savior. We are justified by faith and repentance. To have a new heart, a new life and peace that passes understanding. Not that we become a slave but a child. A son or daughter of the living God. He has spoken through the bible. Why wont people turn to Him. Maybe a painful childhood? Or we love the things of this world more than eternity? Sin is fun, right? We have to be politically correct? I'm sorry but He has made one way. A narrow road. Wide is the path to death. Many take that way. I was on that road as well. Our choice friends.

[This message has been edited by drummachine, 02-22-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Chavalon, posted 02-23-2003 6:26 AM drummachine has not yet responded
 Message 64 by nator, posted 02-23-2003 8:27 AM drummachine has not yet responded

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 152 (32912)
02-23-2003 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by drummachine
02-22-2003 8:33 PM


Hi Drum

I will cut-n-paste an argument:

At a minimum, three things are needed for evolution to happen. Birth (we know that happens), death (we also know that happens), and genetic variation (and we know that happens). More specifically, 1) the births of many more individuals than can survive, to give the maximum genetic potential; 2) the disproportionately high percentage of deaths of organisms who are less well suited to their environments and predatory conditions, and therefore are unable to leave as many offspring; and 3) genetic variation to produce the raw material of physical change, which is then acted upon by natural selective forces.

So here it is, the evolutionist's definition of evolution from Schraf's site. What is there to object to in this? How can you say that there is no evidence for these three things?

If you do accept these three things - birth, death and slight differences between parents and offspring - then you are an evolutionist. As far as I know there are then 3 options:

- Genesis 1 is not history, the earth and life are ancient. Huge numbers of tiny changes, accumulated, can explain all of life's diversity.
- Genesis 1 is true, but its words are used in non-standard ways, the earth and life are ancient. Many kinds were created, something limits the variability in any kind, but they do evolve according to circumstances
- Genesis 1 is true, the earth and life are 6,000 years old. Each kind was on the ark. Very, very rapid evolution has occured since then as the kinds change into species.

So evolution exists. It's a question of which theory of evolution you subscribe to. Then there is the question of how internally consistent each theory really is.

[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 02-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by drummachine, posted 02-22-2003 8:33 PM drummachine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by rmwilliamsjr, posted 02-23-2003 12:48 PM Chavalon has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 512 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 152 (32915)
02-23-2003 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by drummachine
02-22-2003 8:33 PM


quote:
he only problem is I cannot agree with evolution. I did exactly what you were aksing. I observed what was being said. I posted some statements that were said.

No, you didn't do anything I asked you to do.

You did not explain the concept of evolution and NS in your own words.

What I want you to do is summarize, in your own words, what scientists say evolution is, and the bare basics of how it works.

quote:
There is no evidence.

Forget about the evidence for now. Just state in your own words what you believe scientists mean when they say "evolution", and Natural Selection." Don't try to prove or disprove anything, just state the concept.

quote:
I just cannot agree because there has to be a creator.

Why can't there be a creator and evolution at the same time?

quote:
We will never understand Jesus Christ until we repent and receive what He is offering. He paid the penalty for our sin at the cross. The bible is history. Not some religious text book. Numerous prophecies have been fulfilled. It is the revelation from the only One who was there in the past. Its not man's ideas. What a wonderful message it is. We can know the creator. He paid for our sins. He is the Messiah. The Savior. We are justified by faith and repentance. To have a new heart, a new life and peace that passes understanding. Not that we become a slave but a child. A son or daughter of the living God. He has spoken through the bible. Why wont people turn to Him. Maybe a painful childhood? Or we love the things of this world more than eternity? Sin is fun, right? We have to be politically correct? I'm sorry but He has made one way. A narrow road. Wide is the path to death. Many take that way. I was on that road as well. Our choice friends.

STOP PREACHING
STOP PREACHING
STOP PREACHING
STOP PREACHING
STOP PREACHING
STOP PREACHING
STOP PREACHING
STOP PREACHING


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by drummachine, posted 02-22-2003 8:33 PM drummachine has not yet responded

rmwilliamsjr
Inactive Junior Member


Message 65 of 152 (32934)
02-23-2003 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Chavalon
02-23-2003 6:26 AM


sufficent evolution
your system is better described as did darwin, descent with modifications. evolution draws at least two more principles out of an examination of the world of life. 1-common ancestor, i think it is an axiom, but i am open to modification of this. assumption that there was 1 primorial organism from which all life as we know it, both alife now and in the fossil record descended.

you can not derived common ancestor from your 3 principles. "birth death and slight differences"

2-and something about the sufficency of modification to cause all the various forms of life we see. this principle is not universally accepted in the scientific world. sufficency of random mutations plus natural selection is more like a tendative working assumption.

without these two additional ideas your system is not evolution. but some much weaker form of descent with modifications.

richard williams

------------------
homepage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Chavalon, posted 02-23-2003 6:26 AM Chavalon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Chavalon, posted 02-23-2003 1:48 PM rmwilliamsjr has responded

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 152 (32939)
02-23-2003 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by rmwilliamsjr
02-23-2003 12:48 PM


Hi Richard -

I was taught that there probably was a last universal common ancestor. It was presented - reasonably enough, as I thought - as an inference based on the remarkable similarity in the core biochemistry of all organisms. I have never seen anything like a rigorous proof of LUCA's existence, nor a research proposal to establish such a proof.

More recently, following a link somewhere on this site (sorry no idea which thread), I saw a phylogenetic tree which had an interwoven network of lineages at the base with no 'main stem', thus no LUCA.

It was presumably based on the assumption that as organic chemistry was becoming complex enough to involve reasonably good replication and energy transduction, the reactions were non-specific enough that lineages could merge easily, as well as split easily.

In any case, the existence of LUCA is certainly not a necessary axiom for evolution.

All 3 of the theories of evolution I presented involve descent with modification. However the ID/OEC and YEC versions (2 and 3 respectively) involve their proponents in all sorts of unresolved complexities which do not affect the mainstream scientific version.

Specifically, they are vague enough to be described as unscientific unless someone, eventually, comes up with a remotely credible definition of 'kinds', and a remotely credible molecular genetic explanation of how the mutation of a certain lineage can be limited or directed to a set range of phenotypes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by rmwilliamsjr, posted 02-23-2003 12:48 PM rmwilliamsjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by rmwilliamsjr, posted 02-24-2003 1:24 PM Chavalon has responded

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 152 (32979)
02-23-2003 9:24 PM


This is what I believe that site proclaimed. This is what I got out of the Webster's New World Dictionary.

evolution: 1 The gradual changes that take place as something develops into a different or more complicated form. 2 The theory that all plants and animals have developed from earlier forms by changes that took place over periods of many years and were passed on from one generation to the next.

Where is the sample? If we evolved from a common ancestor, is my grandpa curious George? Seriously, is this what evolution is? Man evolved from other species? Man is man and ape is ape just like God said. Its very sad that man would put all there faith, hope and trust in man's opinions than the creator. The only one that was there in the past. The bible fits with history, not evolution.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-24-2003 2:44 AM drummachine has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Chavalon, posted 02-24-2003 8:25 AM drummachine has not yet responded
 Message 70 by David unfamous, posted 02-24-2003 8:39 AM drummachine has not yet responded
 Message 83 by nator, posted 02-28-2003 8:30 AM drummachine has not yet responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 152 (33007)
02-24-2003 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by drummachine
02-23-2003 9:24 PM


God saith...
quote:
Seriously, is this what evolution is? Man evolved from other species? Man is man and ape is ape just like God said.

How did He say that to you? God told me indirectly that man is an ape, too closely related with the other apes. God spoke through fossils He preserved in Africa, through the DNA and proteins of living apes, through evidence He has given for us to see.

And yes, drumlover/salesman, man evolved from another species. Go ask God if He had meant otherwise, as His child you seem to have personal channels inaccessible to us evilutionists. Ask him why He created australopiths which lived 2 million years ago. Ask him why He fashioned our DNA so similar to chimp DNA down to the details and mistakes. Ask him why he had created man as a cheap copy of the other apes.

Oh, and stop preaching. I am not a Christian and Christian preachers IMO are the most annoying. Why not try preaching Buddhism or Islam?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by drummachine, posted 02-23-2003 9:24 PM drummachine has not yet responded

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 152 (33037)
02-24-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by drummachine
02-23-2003 9:24 PM


The bible fits with history, not evolution.
So do you believe that species are incapable of change, and that every single animal species ever to have existed was in the ark?

Most YEC's find the logistics involved in that idea so insane that they go for 'just' a few thousand kinds plus very rapid evolution afterwards.

------------------
Then HE said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Luke 24 v 25


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by drummachine, posted 02-23-2003 9:24 PM drummachine has not yet responded

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 152 (33038)
02-24-2003 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by drummachine
02-23-2003 9:24 PM


You can't accept millions upon millions of years of gradual change, yet you do firmly believe man suddenly appeared from dirt, and woman from a rib. Interesting.

Here's a question drummy; If you lived 2000 years ago, had no knowledge of physics, palentology, geography, cosmology etc. and you were asked to make up a story that you and others could accept as the origin of life, what would you come up with?

Most probably you would use some powerful being and magic in your story. Yet in the year 2003 you still cling to such fantasy as if you were from such an age. Quite unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by drummachine, posted 02-23-2003 9:24 PM drummachine has not yet responded

rmwilliamsjr
Inactive Junior Member


Message 71 of 152 (33069)
02-24-2003 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Chavalon
02-23-2003 1:48 PM


without a principle of common descent, you are stuck with 'puddles' of evolving organisms without explanatory mechanisms to unify them. much like the OEC kinds there will be no evolutionary principles to put them into the usual phylogenic trees.

descent with modification does not imply descent of all from last unified common ancestor. the link is to put them, all the fossils and all the living things, together in a nested hierarchical structure.
the first step, maybe the only one necessary to posit as an axiom is common ancestor, or common descent, just something to tie the pieces we see backwards through time.

------------------
homepage
blog


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Chavalon, posted 02-23-2003 1:48 PM Chavalon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Chavalon, posted 02-24-2003 2:34 PM rmwilliamsjr has not yet responded

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 152 (33072)
02-24-2003 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by rmwilliamsjr
02-24-2003 1:24 PM


without a principle of common descent, you are stuck with 'puddles' of evolving organisms without explanatory mechanisms to unify them.

Not at all. When eukaryotic cells were formed by the permanent symbiosis of two prokaryotic lineages, disparate branches of the phylogenetic tree were mingled. There is no reason to suppose that this sort of thing was not possible - even easier - earlier on in life's history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by rmwilliamsjr, posted 02-24-2003 1:24 PM rmwilliamsjr has not yet responded

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 152 (33189)
02-25-2003 9:57 PM


If you want to insult me (drummy, etc.) thats fine. The great debate is if there is a creator or we evolved by time and chance. Truthfully what really makes sense? We see mutations yes but no animal has evolved into another. I believe there are mistakes, etc. because of sin. The world has been changed. If the bible is just a magical book are you not just closing your mind? The bible is a book of history. Many people take the bible out of context. When someone reads something in the bible it seems like they think that God is approving everything. If I am wrong please let me know. Sure there are similarities in man and ape. But they are not the same. They never have been. That doesn't prove evolution. There is more to life than are five senses. People believe that the bible is just some religious text book written by some sheep herders or whatever. Lets look at what is written.

Hebrews 11:2 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

If God explained everything we would have a infinite amount of books. Is that a problem? Is it your world or His? Here is a couple more if interested. Rather than insulting eachtother, why don't we just be mature and just look at the evidence. The facts. Science is the study of things that are made. If we evolved by time and chance did a automobile? Of course not. Does a car have a purpose? Yes. But we just evolved by time and chance? Evolution means adding information. Do we see that? No. Everything is slowing down.

Romans 1:19-20 Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe man's labor on earth-his eyes not seeing sleep day or night-then I saw all God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

test 1) matter + energy + time + chance = ? or

test 2)Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth.

Many people stumble on the 'garden of eden'. A perfect world. Man created eternally to have relationship with God. God created the ability to do good or evil. Man chose his own way then God's. The chain was broken. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has put the chain back together. Its great to be a Christian because we know that there will be a new heaven and new earth. Has man been so indoctrinated that he only believes what his eyes see?

The ark was 45 x 75 x 450. It could easily fit them all.They only need two dogs. Not every different kind. We see all different kinds of dogs with longer or shorter noses, colors, shapes, etc. Just as man or any other animal. Are they still dogs? Yes.

[This message has been edited by drummachine, 02-25-2003]

[This message has been edited by drummachine, 02-25-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Quetzal, posted 02-26-2003 2:49 AM drummachine has not yet responded
 Message 77 by David unfamous, posted 02-26-2003 6:49 AM drummachine has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-27-2003 10:15 AM drummachine has not yet responded
 Message 82 by nator, posted 02-28-2003 8:23 AM drummachine has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4214 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 152 (33214)
02-26-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by drummachine
02-25-2003 9:57 PM


I smell a "kinds" discussion coming on.

quote:
The ark was 45 x 75 x 450. It could easily fit them all.They only need two dogs. Not every different kind. We see all different kinds of dogs with longer or shorter noses, colors, shapes, etc. Just as man or any other animal. Are they still dogs? Yes.
Okay, there were two dogs(Canis lupus familiaris). Were there also two wolves (Canis lupus)? How about two golden jackals (Canis aureus) and two black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas)? Any other wolves (like Canis rufus or Canis simensis)? How about non-canis dogs like the "small eared dog" (Atelocynus microtis) or the African hunting dog (Lycaon pictus)? Any other canids? Say, foxes? Get the picture?

The problem you've got with the Ark assertion you made - setting aside for the moment the mind-boggling engineering problems to overcome in making a boat that big out of wood with no metal and having it actually able to float - is that you're gonna have to define the "kinds" that were on the thing. If you're gonna say that "there was plenty of room", you'll need to figure out exactly what there was plenty of room for. After all, we have approx. 1.8 million identified species (with a scientific name) today, with an estimated 11-13 million total species (or extreme estimates up to 80 million counting single-celled organisms, which I suppose you could keep in a jar or something). That's a heck of a lot of critters, even if each one was no bigger than your average dog...

So, care to define "kind"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by drummachine, posted 02-25-2003 9:57 PM drummachine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by David unfamous, posted 02-26-2003 4:57 AM Quetzal has responded

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 152 (33218)
02-26-2003 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Quetzal
02-26-2003 2:49 AM


I think you could easily build an ark to house alll the 'kinds' – Furry kinds, crawly kinds, flying kinds, big kinds and small kinds

Of course, explaining how the Koala got to Australia without leaving any evidence of it's journey on the way is another story...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Quetzal, posted 02-26-2003 2:49 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Quetzal, posted 02-26-2003 6:17 AM David unfamous has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019