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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does evolution explain the gaps?
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 59 (45225)
07-06-2003 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
07-05-2003 4:57 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
TIME TO STOP PLAYING GAMES.
Honest evolutionists will admit the TOE has numerous problems, though many feel uncomfortable admitting this publicly.
We all know of the evidence that favors Biblical accounts of past events over the TOE. Sedimentary layers that are separated by oceans and yet match up perfectly. Animals and insects that totally defy the idea of evolution, and in fact prove to be an impossibility according to the tenets of the TOE. [Please don't play the ignorant card and ask me to name that with which you are already, or at least should be, familiar. That's assuming that you are one of the few honest and truly open minded evolutionists.] Fossilized trees protruding through several sedimentary layers, indicating a global flood the laid sedimentary layers very rapidly, not over millions of years. As I stated in previous posts, both evolutionists and creationists prefer accepting evidence that supposedly supports their views while rejecting evidence that obviously contradicts their views. This is nothing new. It has been that way for many millennia. It will continue until Christs' return in Power and Glory.
YOU STATED: "You may or may not be aware that the "science" presented on TV is not presented for scientific edification, but rather for entertainment. The claims of the BBC or any other media conglomerate do not represent the same caliber of knowledge as published, scientific theory. In the same way that Jerry Falwell does not represent the views of all believers, the BBC does not represent the claims of all science."
I never meant to suggest that the BBC, or any other entity, spoke for all proponents of the TOE. I simply pointed out a single example of the attempts to indoctrinate the very young into a mindset that accepts the TOE as an established fact, which it most surely is not. To be fair, organized religion does exactly the same thing, indoctrinating the very young with false teachings and doctrines. Just ask Shraf. She's an ex-catholic who I am sure has had more than a lions share of false teachings and doctrines foisted upon her.
In closing, let me state that many evolutionists, and to be fair, many creationists, tend to navigate towards mob mentality, accepting the majority opinion regardless of the need to investigate further. I thank God that a certain individual rejected that "mob mentality" and insisted that the world was round and not flat, (as is made obvious in the Scriptures, upon which he relied heavily).
Shalom
Jet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2003 4:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by derwood, posted 07-06-2003 5:09 PM Jet has not replied
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2003 6:29 PM Jet has not replied
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 07-06-2003 8:05 PM Jet has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 47 of 59 (45226)
07-06-2003 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jet
07-06-2003 4:14 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
quote:
SHRAF: Perhaps you would like to back up your claim that "more and more" scientists are turning away from the ToE in favor of religious explanations?
Maybe it's me, or maybe it's you or your computer but I looked and looked and yet I could not find where I supposedly made the above statement. Please be kind enough to point out to me in which post I made the above statement. Thank You
message 40:
Jet: "...and every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road."
That is certainly the implication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 4:14 PM Jet has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 59 (45227)
07-06-2003 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by derwood
07-06-2003 4:52 PM


Re: Jet's signature
Agreed!
------------------
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD. Psalm 14:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by derwood, posted 07-06-2003 4:52 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 07-06-2003 5:11 PM Jet has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 49 of 59 (45228)
07-06-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jet
07-06-2003 5:05 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
quote:
We all know of the evidence that favors Biblical accounts of past events over the TOE.
Uh, no, 'we' don't.
And frankly, I find that claim to be patently absurd.
I have seen sound refutations of the supposed 'evidences' you provide.
You are at best out of the loop, scientifically. But you do project well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 5:05 PM Jet has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 50 of 59 (45229)
07-06-2003 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jet
07-06-2003 5:07 PM


Re: Jet's signature
So, you are just being elitist, arrogant, etc.?
Or is this the latest in a long line of creationist double-standards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 5:07 PM Jet has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 59 (45230)
07-06-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by derwood
07-06-2003 5:01 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
Well, I do appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to admit that the TOE is in fact a "dead end".
Funny how that worked out!
Shalom
Jet
------------------
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD. Psalm 14:1
[This message has been edited by Jet, 07-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by derwood, posted 07-06-2003 5:01 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2003 6:33 PM Jet has not replied
 Message 55 by derwood, posted 07-07-2003 11:41 AM Jet has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 59 (45237)
07-06-2003 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jet
07-06-2003 5:05 PM


We all know of the evidence that favors Biblical accounts of past events over the TOE.
I'm actually not - could you enlighten me? As far as I know, Biblical accounts are no more accurate than any other mythological account, which is to say not very.
Sedimentary layers that are separated by oceans and yet match up perfectly.
That's evidence against a biblical flood and for plate tectonics. I don't understand why you mention this in support of your views.
Animals and insects that totally defy the idea of evolution, and in fact prove to be an impossibility according to the tenets of the TOE. [Please don't play the ignorant card and ask me to name that with which you are already, or at least should be, familiar. That's assuming that you are one of the few honest and truly open minded evolutionists.]
What an incredible dodge! You've just made it patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Look, we're having a discussion about evidence. That means you either have to provide evidence or shut up.
As I stated in previous posts, both evolutionists and creationists prefer accepting evidence that supposedly supports their views while rejecting evidence that obviously contradicts their views.
You have to present evidence first before you can accuse people of ignoring it. Time to provide some evidence that you claim contradicts evolution. Tell ya what, I'll make you a deal. I promise, that if you can present some evidence for creatinist views that's beyond reproach or refutation I'll become a creationist. Seriously. I promise.
I simply pointed out a single example of the attempts to indoctrinate the very young into a mindset that accepts the TOE as an established fact, which it most surely is not.
Let me ask you this - if a program hoped to present the current majority of scientific thought on the origin of species, why would it be inappropriate to present the theory of evolution? By your own apparent admission it's what the majority of scientists think. I think you're enough of a media consumer to realize that nothing on TV is presented as "established fact" any more than anything else. Ever watch Fox News?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 5:05 PM Jet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by derwood, posted 07-07-2003 11:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 59 (45238)
07-06-2003 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Jet
07-06-2003 5:12 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
Well, I do appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to admit that the TOE is in fact a "dead end".
Funny how that worked out!
Are you illiterate, or just disingenuous? Either way does not bode well for a rational discussion with you.
You may or may not be aware that SPLx has not admitted anything of the sort, but was merely quoting your own words to you, in response to your denial of having said them. Your response is an infantile playground game.
So, on one hand, you're unable to read, or on another you're apparently a liar. Is this how you witness for your god?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 5:12 PM Jet has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 59 (45242)
07-06-2003 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jet
07-06-2003 5:05 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
Jet writes:
quote:
TIME TO STOP PLAYING GAMES.
And yet your own post is filled with them. For example, you first say:
Animals and insects that totally defy the idea of evolution, and in fact prove to be an impossibility according to the tenets of the TOE.
And then you immediately follow it up with:
[Please don't play the ignorant card and ask me to name that with which you are already, or at least should be, familiar. That's assuming that you are one of the few honest and truly open minded evolutionists.]
This is a prime example of playing games. You make a claim, a very bold claim at that, with absolutely no justification to back it up and then immediately says that anybody who actually has the temerity to ask you for an example is somehow being dishonest.
So call me dishonest, then. I want an example.
There was a wonderful Nature episode on PBS last night: Obsession with Orchids. As you may be aware, orchids are one of the prime examples of evolution we have. They are so well-adapted to their specific pollinators that they just scream evolution. And if that weren't enough, you can create new species of orchid by breeding them yourself. In fact, there are now more kinds of man-made orchids than there are wild orchid.
quote:
Honest evolutionists will admit the TOE has numerous problems,
Of course. It's an active area of scientific research. However, you seem to be of the opinion that "problems" means "fundamental problems."
Instead, the problems in evolution have to do with details. That is, if you come across two mathematicians arguing over whether or not the six millionth digit of pi in its decimal expansion is a 6 or a 2, they are obviously having a discussion. But notice they are not arguing over whether or not pi is an integer.
Have you ever had an argument with someone over what color something was? You'd insist it was orange and they'd be just as certain that it was red, for example. Notice that the two of you both agree that it has a color and that it is in a very specific part of the visual spectrum: Red and orange are adjacent colors and neither of you is saying that it's green. You two are clearly in disagreement, but not over a fundamental proposition...only a tiny detail.
That's the difference between a detail problem and a fundamental problem. There is no fundamental problem in evolution. Since we can observe evolution happen right in front of our eyes (go into the lab and work with bacteria, watching them mutate from lac- to lac+ or from K-type to K/4, for example), then there is no question that evolution happens, just as there is no question that gravity happens because I can see that when I take a ball in my hand and let go, it falls to the ground.
There are lots of questions still to be answered in biology in general and evolution in particular. That doesn't mean the topic is a fantasy of self-deluded individuals.
quote:
though many feel uncomfortable admitting this publicly.
Not at all. I don't know of a single person who understands evolutionary theory who is uncomfortable in saying that there is still plenty of work to be done in the field.
quote:
We all know of the evidence that favors Biblical accounts of past events over the TOE.
No, we don't. Again, call me dishonest, but could you please provide an example?
quote:
Sedimentary layers that are separated by oceans and yet match up perfectly.
That would be evidence of plate tectonics, not a global flood. You see, a flood would lay down sediment that is most like the surrounding uppermost layers. The uppermost layers of Africa are not like the uppermost layers of the Americas. Therefore, a global flood would not show identical layers across the ocean...they're too far away.
Plate tectonics, on the other hand, accounts for this: At some point in the past, Africa and the Americas were part of the same land mass. Thus, when they broke apart, they maintained their shared history as new, unrelated layers are deposited on top of them.
quote:
Animals and insects that totally defy the idea of evolution, and in fact prove to be an impossibility according to the tenets of the TOE.
Again, call me dishonest, but I'm going to need an example. So far, every species we have been able to examine has proven to be expected from evolutionary processes.
Help us out here. Give us an example and then describe what we would necessarily expect to see out of an evolutionary process and then show us why that result is not seen. And then if you're going to claim creation, you're going to have to describe what we would necessarily expect to see out of a creation event and then show us why that result is seen.
Personally, I think you're going to have a bit of a problem with that last bit since creation can happen in any way. When your "theory" is nothing more than "god did it," then it doesn't matter what things look like. Since "god did it" is consistent with every single outcome, we are left with the adage that "a theory which explains everything actually explains nothing."
quote:
Fossilized trees protruding through several sedimentary layers, indicating a global flood the laid sedimentary layers very rapidly, not over millions of years.
Ah, yes. Polystrate fossils. Please look here:
"Polystrate" Tree Fossils
A Whale of a Tale
The first debunks the myth that there is a "problem" with polystrate fossils. After all, they were explained quite handily over 100 years ago.
The second debunks the myth of the baleen whale fossil supposedly found upright through "50 million years of strata." For example, the whale wasn't upright.
quote:
As I stated in previous posts, both evolutionists and creationists prefer accepting evidence that supposedly supports their views while rejecting evidence that obviously contradicts their views. This is nothing new.
But the difference is what happens when you prove those views to be wrong.
In religion, they excommunicate you and if they really don't like you, they'll put you to death. You do recall that people were burned at the stake for claiming the earth went around the sun, yes?
When was the last time you heard of the AAAS calling for the death of somebody?
In science, however, if you overturn the dominant paradigm, they give you the Nobel Prize.
quote:
In closing, let me state that many evolutionists, and to be fair, many creationists, tend to navigate towards mob mentality, accepting the majority opinion regardless of the need to investigate further. I thank God that a certain individual rejected that "mob mentality" and insisted that the world was round and not flat, (as is made obvious in the Scriptures, upon which he relied heavily).
Um, not quite. You seem to have fallen for the myth.
The world was known to be round since at least the Ancient Greeks. Eratosthenes gave a remarkably good estimate for the size of the earth from a simple triangulation.
And no, Columbus was not fighting against people who thought the earth was flat. He was fighting against people who thought the earth was big. That is, everybody knew the earth was round, but they were confident in the calculations that described a journey westward to be longer than a journey around Africa...especially since there were no known landing points to pick up supplies along the way. Columbus, using erroneous data and making a severe miscalculation, underestimated the size of the earth by a huge amount but thus convincing him that a journey westward was shorter than eastward around Africa and could be done in ships with ample supplies.
As we all know, he was wrong: The earth is big...so big that there is another continental system in the way.
I notice that you use a flat earth for your example rather than the geocentric universe. Could that be because Galileo is such a positive indicator of the resistance science meets when coming up against church dogma?
But let's not quibble over the shape or position of the earth. Let's talk about the moon. Galileo looked through his telescope and saw mountains on the moon. He even got the churchmen together who told him he was engaging in heresy for suggesting that the moon was not perfectly round and smooth and pleaded with them to simply look through the telescope and see for themselves. They refused since they already knew that the moon was perfect.
Look through the telescope, Jet.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 5:05 PM Jet has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 55 of 59 (45283)
07-07-2003 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Jet
07-06-2003 5:12 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
quote:
Well, I do appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to admit that the TOE is in fact a "dead end".
Funny how that worked out
Almost as funny as the creationist blatantly distorting the words of an evolutionist. I'm shocked...
------------------
(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 5:12 PM Jet has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 56 of 59 (45284)
07-07-2003 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
07-06-2003 6:29 PM


quote:
quote:
Sedimentary layers that are separated by oceans and yet match up perfectly.
That's evidence against a biblical flood and for plate tectonics. I don't understand why you mention this in support of your views.
Especially interesting is the fact that most creationists claim the exact opposite - that there is no "geologic column" anywhere. And they that that THAT is evidence of 'the flood'.
Maybe these guys should get together once in a while to get their stories striaght?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2003 6:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 59 (45298)
07-07-2003 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jet
07-06-2003 4:14 PM


Re: The evolutionists' same old, same old.
quote:
Shraf(sic), you are, IMHO, the epitome of the "BLINDED DUE TO WILLFUL IGNORANCE" crowd.
Gee, and here I thought you were going to educate me with these mountains of evidence. How can I be willfully ignorant if I have not been presented with any evidence to ignore?
LOL!
quote:
As usual, you open with a poorly veiled attempt at insult before moving on to your questions.
You thought I was trying to veil anything? Hmm, my bad.
Seriously, though, you are the one who said you were doing this secret important research. You, not me, you. It seems pretty lame to get pissy with me just because you don't like being reminded of something you chose to put out there all by yourself. You did it, so now you're paying for it.
quote:
POINT BY POINT ANSWERS FOR SHRAF(sic)...
ANSWER #1. No.
So, you don't blame Biology for not having perfect knowledge?
So, what did you mean when you said this in message #14:
quote:
Jet:Actually, I didn't expect that you would, or even could, supply me with even a single example of a life form evolving from its' beginning, ending at its' present form today.
It seems to me that you were criticizing Biology for not having a perfect progression of fossil evidence for a single species. Why do you believe that not having this kind of perfect evidence harms the ToE?
quote:
ANSWER #2. No.
So, you are NOT comfortable with the idea that "Physicsdidit" even though you are not able to understand or explain all of the where's and why's of gravity?
So, you doubt that gravity exists because we do not fully understand it? Interesting.
quote:
ANSWER #3. Simply by using the God given abilities of logic and reason.
Actually, you skipped number three, which was a request for a link to a legitimate site which backed up your assertion that the ToE is based in pagan religious practice.
If the question you were answering was, "How can can tell the difference between a system which is Intelligently Designed and a natural one which we haven't figured out yet or may not ever figure out?", then you must not realize that I want to understand much more deeply. Your throwaway, contentless reply is unconvincing, to say the least.
Can you give me a specific example of any biological system, explaining how it has been intelligently designed, and how you know for sure that it could not have arisen naturally? You must also address the issue of our possibly not having the intelligence to understand some things, as our intelligence is not boundless.
quote:
ANSWER #4. Puhleeeez! Are you suggesting that the foundations of Biology and Genetics were baseless and/or non-existant before the TOE?
No, but the ToE is currently a very large foundational aspect of both fields. Now please answer my question; given the importance of Evolutionary Theory in the fields of Genetics and Biology, how is it that Medical Science has progressed as it has if the ToE is completely wrong?
quote:
True to form, you credit me with a statement that I don't recall making. My statement read as follows..."every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road." However, for some unknown reason, that same statement appeared on your computer screen in the following, altered manner.......
: Perhaps you would like to back up your claim that "more and more" scientists are turning away from the ToE in favor of religious explanations?
Maybe it's me, or maybe it's you or your computer but I looked and looked and yet I could not find where I supposedly made the above statement. Please be kind enough to point out to me in which post I made the above statement. Thank You.
You are right, I extrapolated the, "in favor of religious explanations" from your statement, an understandable mistake, considering your Creationist position.
However, I will alter my request to the following: "Perhaps you would like to back up your claim that "more and more" scientists are turning away from the ToE?" That will suffice.
quote:
As to your ending statements, please refer to message #40 again. Perhaps you simply skimmed the post, or perhaps your speed reading skills need some polishing. Which ever is the case, please read message #40 again for total clarification.
I didn't find any "mountains of evidence" of any flavor in post #40. Perhaps you could cut n paste the "mountain of evidence" from that post which I am obviously missing?
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jet, posted 07-06-2003 4:14 PM Jet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Wounded King, posted 07-10-2003 5:09 AM nator has not replied

  
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 59 (45575)
07-10-2003 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jet
02-24-2003 11:02 AM


Re: Here's a better idea!
ToE isn’t a catalogue of biological change. It describes a process though which biological change is the BYPRODUCT. If we had a full catalogue of facts we wouldn’t need god or theories of anything. ToE explanatory and predicability powers are its success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jet, posted 02-24-2003 11:02 AM Jet has not replied

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


Message 59 of 59 (45590)
07-10-2003 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by nator
07-07-2003 12:17 PM


Re: semantics indeed
Arguably genetics did not exist, certainly as a science, before Darwin's original evolutionary theories were published. Mendel was only starting to publish his work at the time, so while animal husbandry and ad hoc agricultural genetics were in existence there was nothing that we would consider comparable to modern genetics and certainly nothing like molecular genetics.
Obviously the modern synthesis of evolution could not precede Mendelian genetics.
I'm a bit worried about your Medical Science angle Schraf, I would say it is pretty arguable that a large amount of medical science is simply based on first hand observation of human anatomy and trial and error discovery of successful new treatments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 07-07-2003 12:17 PM nator 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