|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What evidence is needed to change a creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Volunteer writes: If evolution were a fact, proven beyond doubt,... Theories are never proven. The best they can achieve is to become accepted after an intense period of review, vefication, replication and successful predictions.
...or even a convincing theory, we could not possibly expect to see thousands of reputable scientists rejecting it outright. Discovery Institute's list of Scientists who Dissent from Darwinism contains only about 750 names. On the other hand, the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve currently has around 800 names supporting evolution. The catch is only scientists name Steve are allowed to sign, so since Steve's are about 1% of scientists, that means that around 80,000 scientists accept evolution. 80,000 supporters versus 750 dissenters. That's less than 1% dissenting. Can you name any successful theory supported by less than 1% of scientists? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Volunteer Junior Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 21 From: Tennessee Joined: |
Another thing that would be necessary is for evolution to seem more logical. If order does not come from chaos in the natural world it would not make logical sense to argue that it did with respect to origins.
If complex systems such as computers require the need of a designer to find both purpose and function it doesn't make logical sense to think that infinitely more complex systems such as the human body occurred without an intelligent agent. Logic would indicate that if something looks designed it must be designed. Maybe someone can explain the logic in Punctuated Equilibrium (PE).Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge tried to explain away the fact that the fossil record showed abrupt appearance of species and stasis, or lack of substantial change, throughout a species' range in the fossil record. Eldredge and Gould stated that the abrupt appearance of species could be exlained by the transition occurring quickly, geologically speaking, in small, isolated populations such that the transitional forms would be highly unlikely to be preserved. What are Gould and Eldredge ultimately saying? What is PE? Ultimately, PE is a proposed mode of evolution. What is evolution? Is it not change? PE is supposed to be a mode of change and yet the evidence for it is stasis. But what is stasis? Is it not lack of change? So then lack of change (stasis) is the evidence for change (evolution via PE)! Man, I have a headache. I'm going next door to play a little chess with my neighbor and think logically for a while. "Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
If complex systems such as computers require the need of a designer to find both purpose and function it doesn't make logical sense to think that infinitely more complex systems such as the human body occurred without an intelligent agent
So by that logic a complex system such as a designer must have a even more complex designer and so on and so on and so on.... Who designed god? soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
If order does not come from chaos in the natural world it would not make logical sense to argue that it did with respect to origins. I'm not sure what sense of the word "chaos" you intend there, Vol. But have you ever heard of Werner Heisenberg? Or of quantum mechanics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Volunteer
If complex systems such as computers require the need of a designer to find both purpose and function it doesn't make logical sense to think that infinitely more complex systems such as the human body occurred without an intelligent agent. And what of the infinitely more complex system that entails God? What would be the intelligent agency that allows for the complexity of that system?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Volunteer Junior Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 21 From: Tennessee Joined: |
I was unaware that this forum existed until recently and I have several unanswered questions in my mind. Evolutionary theory suggests that life evolved through minute changes witin organisms over long periods of time. If this is true, how would the heart, which requires the brain to tell it to beat, function during its intermediary stages while the brain was evolving? When did the heart, which is a whole system by itself, decide to evolve and become a complex circulatory system? How did this circulatory system evolve in small increments separate from the heart if it needs all of its parts together to function?
What about the nervous system? When did a primitive unintelligent organism decide that it needed to develop a nervous system? Why did the organism need a nervous system if it survived without one? When did a primitive organism decide it needed a muscular system, a respiratory system, and a digestive system? How did all of these complex systems evolve separate from each other if they need to work together? "Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Hi Volunteer,
We try to control the topics in a thread here so things aren't any more chaotic than they already are. I think you question is too far from the focus of the thread to be discussed here. You may propose a new topic in the Proposed New Topics thread if you like. However, maybe you should do a bit of reading and research on your own first. These kind of questions can sometimes be difficult to answer but yours are particularly easy. We have extant organisms around today who circulate "blood" without a brain for example. The rest of your questions are based on a deep, deep lack of understanding of the evolutionary model and are best answered in another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I second our admin, Volunteer. Looks like you already have the start of a workable OP in Message 51.
The evolution of nervous and circulatory systems is a fascinating topic. We could get a good thread out of questions like these. Welcome to EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Volunteer: Molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton - "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis(Bethesda, Md: Adler & Adler Publishers, Inc. 1986), p.358. nwr: A quote from a review of a more recent Denton book: "From the impossibility of evolution to the inevitability of evolution: Anti-Evolutionist Michael Denton turns into an 'Evolutionist'. Please feel free, Volunteer, to quote Denton's more recent work as well. Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
Volunteer writes: ...how would the heart, which requires the brain to tell it to beat, function during its intermediary stages while the brain was evolving? When did the heart, which is a whole system by itself, decide to evolve and become a complex circulatory system?... Why do you suppose a brain-dead individual still has a heart beat? (No, that's not a veiled insult of creationist, I mean in the clinical sense.) The human heart does not require the brain to tell it to beat. The heart has 3 systems to regulate the heart each with its own intrinsic rate. Sinoatrial node (SA node) Atrioventricular node (AV node) And third the Purkinje fibers Next, the heart is an organ not a system, it is part of the circulatory system. Have you taken even an intro bio course yet? The heart doesn't require the brain for any stages of evolution. I know you think these arguments are clever, but they are simply demonstrating to the rest of us how little you know. -x
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Who designed god? No one. God always was. It may break my heart to admit it but that's the way I see it. Do you think the "Cosmic Buck" stops anywhere? I do. I think if there is anything which always was and aways will be, is ever existing and self existing, it is probably more like me than it is like a rock or a weed or even a dolphin or chimpanzee. If anyone is an all-powerful and eternal Being, I think that Being, is more like a human being than like a chimp, an ape, or a colony of ants, or a tree, or a rock. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I know you think these arguments are clever, but they are simply demonstrating to the rest of us how little you know. This is a problem I have with arguing the big picture of evolution. Many knowledgeable people get down on details about bacteria or enzyms and score all these little knowledge points. You come away saying to yourself "Well, she certainly knows more about bacteria than I do." Or you admit that on some minute small level that person has mastered the facts to expose how much they know. But after a little while you think about the big picture again of macro evolution and it seems no more likely than before. I find that most strigent defenders of macro evolution only like to drag you down into minute details about minute things proving the superiority of their mastering of knowledge of small issues. It doesn't make us have more confidence that your big picture is plausible. Okay, so you dazzle me with how much you know about proteins, and how uneducated I am about proteins. Somehow after the brow beating is over I still find it hard to believe that random minute modifications brought about the human brain from a little one celled "simplier" life without design. ( I would say piece of dirt. But then a mighty chorus would swell up "Evolution does not concerned origin of life issues. You don't understand Evolution." )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But after a little while you think about the big picture again of macro evolution and it seems no more likely than before. It doesn't make us have more confidence that your big picture is plausible. ... I still find it hard to believe that random minute modifications brought about the human brain from a little one celled "simplier" life without design. Have you ever defined what you think the "big picture" is made up from? If you want to discuss things as a "macro" level you need to start with defining what constitutes macro versus what constitutes micro. See:
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? Dogs will be Dogs wil be ??? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to DrJones*:
quote:quote: So if god doesn't need a creator, why does the universe? What's so special about god? If you're willing to concede that there are some things that do not need outside direction, why can't the universe be one of those things?
quote: Why can't it stop with the universe? If you're going to concede that it has to stop, why can't the universe be that place? Note: Cosmogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill writes:
quote: If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? "Macroevolution" is nothing more than a lot of "microevolution." So if you're willing to concede that evolution happens, why can't it happen as much as you like? How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to evolve anymore? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024