Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 151 of 385 (563377)
06-04-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Blue Jay
06-04-2010 1:48 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
If I have understood...
PaulK's position seems to be that there is a contradiction between defining kinds as both that which were created and that which can evolve.
But if creos assert that all kinds were created and that no new kinds have evolved (or are able to evolve) then there is no contradiction.
So I think his contradiction is practically non-existent and theoretically superfluous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Blue Jay, posted 06-04-2010 1:48 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2010 5:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 152 of 385 (563383)
06-04-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Taq
06-03-2010 3:27 PM


quote:
Why would an all powerful and all knowing deity need to reuse any kind of design or genetic makeup? Isn't it just as likely that every single kind would have it's own genetic systems, or at least it's own codon usage? For an all powerful being reusing designs is just as easy as starting from scratch.
Just as easy perhaps - and certainly within the grasp of the God of the Bible. However, a collection of creatures - each completely unique from any other species - would be quite chaotic, and would fail to demonstrate order. The Bible clearly demonstrates that God acts according to his nature - of which order is a part.
quote:
Also, why does the reuse of design fall into a nested hierarchy, into a clade? Why do bats have three middle ear bones and fur while birds have a single middle ear bone and feathers? Why should bats share more features with a fox than it does another flying creature? We don't see this pattern of shared characteristics when humans re-use designs. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Even more, humans readily move genes between different species which violates the nested hierarchy. Again, the only explanation for this pattern of shared characteristics is common descent and evolution.
Why do bats and dolphins share the same protiens/enzymes for use in echolocation? There is no real nested heirarchy - it looks good at the big-picture level, but dig a little deeper and you'll see the details don't fit. I'd love to dive deeper into this topic, but perhaps we should start a new thread for the discussion?
quote:
We observe retroviruses inserting themselves into genomes. We observe that they do this randomly. Therefore, when you see two insertions at the same spot in two different genomes the only explanation is that it is from a single insertion in a common ancestor. Also, the divergence of ERV sequences (both overall sequence and LTR divergence) produces the same phylogenetic tree as the placement in the genome. Three different sources of phylogenetic ERV data all point to the same thing, humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor. Your scenario does not explain these phylogenetic signals. For more reading go here.
I demonstrated already that its not the ONLY explanation. Perhaps the more reasonable one given the assumption of common ancestry, but not when given the assumption of Biblical creation. Where you start leads to your interpretation of the data.
quote:
No, it is not speculation. The genetic evidence (such as the ERV evidence in the paper above) clearly indicates shared ancestry.
You keep stating this without providing any backing evidence, and without addressing the opposing evidence I previously posted. Maybe you meant to post a link above - I didn't see one (if I missed it I apologize). I'd be happy to examine the basis for your claims, but simply telling me I'm wrong without providing supporting data does nothing to further the discussion.
quote:
Surely the different genomes contain different information, do they not? That different information is due to different sequences. Mutations produce different sequences, and selection filters out the bad and allows the good to prosper. If you disagree, then please pick two genomes from two different baramins and show us which differences evolution could not produce.
I'm not sure I'm following here. Are you trying to say "different genomes contain different information, therefore we have proof that evolution can add information to the genome"? because that's circular logic - it begins with the assumption of common ancestry.
I thought I had already made my position clear. I do not believe the evolutionary process capable of adding any information to any genome - there is no evidence to suggest it (unless you assume common ancestry). Even in experiments with rapid-mutating bacteria the only development of new capability comes as a result of decay - breakdown of already existing enzymes - not the creation of new ones. Now, if evidence came to light clearly demonstrating the evolutionary process adding information to a genome then I would revise my position - but I would not revise my belief in YEC, as it would still be the model that most consistently fits the data.
quote:
Compare the genome of humans and chimps. Those differences are what evolution is capable of producing. It really is that simple.
Again, this assumes common ancestry - an assumption I'm not willing to make because the data I've seen doesn't support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 3:27 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 06-05-2010 10:28 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 153 of 385 (563384)
06-04-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Straggler
06-03-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
Because it might help those of us struggling with your point to work out what it is you actually mean?
It wouldn't because exactly where creationists draw the boundary doesn't matter.
quote:
I thought your point was that the two definitions are contradictory?
No, only that taken together they lead to a position at odds with creationist thought.
quote:
Well if they believe that new kinds cannot be produced by evolution then they must also believe that all kinds have been created as seperate creations.
Believing it is not the same as making it a definition. The argument is about definitions, not beliefs.
urse, I repeat that you were wrong that I was to say
quote:
I didn't say you were ignoring any contradictions. I said you were ignoring the limit on change that creos believe micro-evolution is capable of. Where is their contradiction in that?
The contradiction is between the meaning of the two definitions taken together and those creationist beliefs.
And for clarity I will repeat that I didn't ignore it at all - I used it in my argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 5:28 PM Straggler has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 385 (563385)
06-04-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Blue Jay
06-04-2010 1:48 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
quote:
I was under the impression that we were debating the internal consistency of the creationist position, not talking about how their arguments relate to evolutionary arguments.
Not really, unless you are alleging an inconsistency (my argument assumes that they ARE consistent).
And since we are talking about creationist views of evolution it is hard to see how we can ignore the content of evolutionary theory unless we assume that creationists are ignorant of even the basics.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Blue Jay, posted 06-04-2010 1:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Blue Jay, posted 06-04-2010 6:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 155 of 385 (563386)
06-04-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Straggler
06-04-2010 3:55 PM


Re: It's still a dog!od.
quote:
If I have understood...
PaulK's position seems to be that there is a contradiction between defining kinds as both that which were created and that which can evolve.
You have not understood.
The issue yet again is that the two definitions taken in combination define "macroevolution" to exclude ALL evolution (in fact the term - as an oxymoron - cannot refer to anything at all).
This means that all evolution is microevolution.
This contradicts creationist beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2010 3:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Blue Jay, posted 06-04-2010 6:02 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2010 6:26 PM PaulK has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 156 of 385 (563387)
06-04-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Taq
06-03-2010 4:20 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
Past events create evidence that can be observed in the here and now. This includes fossils and inherited DNA. One can construct hypotheses and use this evidence to test the hypothesis. For example, if common ancestry is true then you should not find a fossil with feather impressions and three middle ear bones.
agree.
quote:
So what hypotheses can one construct using baraminology? What features would a fossil need in order to falsify baramins? What genetic features would one need to observe in order to falsify baramins? This is how you get rid of bias, by making risky predictions. Baraminologists refuse to make these risky predictions.
No fossil in and of itself would falsify Baraminology - because baramins are based on the work of an omnipotent Creator, who could (theoretically) make anything he desired. It could be falsified if clear evidence were shown for common ancestry between chimps and humans - but the evidence for this (at present) is far from conclusive.
quote:
That's false. It was based on the ratio of isotopes in the rocks surrounding the fossil. The age of the fossil is known and is solid. You can go measure the rocks yourself if you think their results are biased. The problem is figuring out how tissue can be preserved for about 65 million years.
The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques. You prove my point here that darwinists were unable to come to the reasonable conclusion (a young fossil) since they were unwilling to question their base-assumption of the accuracy of radio-isotope dating methods.
quote:
Like you have already shown, you don't even know what these assumptions are. The assumptions of science (including the biological sciences) are rather mundane. First, there are knowable causes for natural phenomenon. Second, the universe is rational and can be examined by rational beings. Third, knowledge is gained through empirical observations. Fourth, nature behaves the same through space and time (uniformity). If water boils at 100 C today it will boil at 100 C tomorrow if the variables are the same. That's about it. The constant decay of radioisotopes is not assumed, it is observed. Abiogenesis is not an assumption, it is a field of research where nothing is assumed. Common descent is not speculation or an assumption, it is a conclusion drawn from hundreds of thousands of tested hypotheses
You successfully list SOME assumptions - and I agree that these assumptions are made in most all cases, these are the common assumptions. Any conclusions based on evidence are assumptions as well. If new data or a more logical interpretation of the data comes to light then those conclusions can be shown to be false. I'm surprised you are having trouble seeing this.
quote:
What you seem to be missing is that evolution is USEFUL. Phylogenetics is a very important tool. In the field of comparative phylogenomics the theory of evolution allows one to use common ancestry and evolution to predict protein function, as one example. No one is using baraminology to do . . . well, anything (unless you count christian apologetics as something).
Phylogenetics is a useful tool ONLY if the assumption of common ancestry is correct. If the YEC model assumption is correct then Baraminology is a useful tool and phylogenetics is not. Baraminology (and other creation sciences) can be used to make predictions as well - such as "transitional forms between distinct known kinds will not be found in the fossil record" or more specifically "transitional forms demonstrating common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees will not be found".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 4:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by cavediver, posted 06-04-2010 5:16 PM BobTHJ has not replied
 Message 158 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2010 5:21 PM BobTHJ has seen this message but not replied
 Message 159 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2010 5:28 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 06-04-2010 5:48 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 06-05-2010 2:41 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 239 by Peepul, posted 06-09-2010 9:17 AM BobTHJ has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 157 of 385 (563388)
06-04-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by BobTHJ
06-04-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Getting down to details
The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques.
Oh dear, does poor Jay Wile find the constancy of decay rates unreasonable? I find his part in the intellectual abuse of children rather more than unreasonable. It is blatently obvious that he has zero knowledge of Oklo, observational astrophysics, zircons (apart from the bullshit perpetuated by idiots such as Humphreys, et al), and yet claims there is no evidence. Oh well, just another Idiot for Christ. And you are wallowing in his ignorance and naivity. Well, good for you. But please excuse us as we laugh ourselves sick over your claims of "irresponsible".
{People, topic theme focus please. A radiometric dating topic spun off this topic can be found at Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by BobTHJ, posted 06-04-2010 5:05 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 158 of 385 (563389)
06-04-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by BobTHJ
06-04-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Getting down to details
if clear evidence were shown for common ancestry between chimps and humans - but the evidence for this (at present) is far from conclusive.
It's a conclusive as evidence gets in science. It's as sure as the notion that the planets in our solar system travel in ellipses around the barycenter of the whole mess, down close to the Sun.
OT for this thread, perhaps? Shall I start a new one?

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by BobTHJ, posted 06-04-2010 5:05 PM BobTHJ has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 159 of 385 (563390)
06-04-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by BobTHJ
06-04-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Getting down to details
"transitional forms demonstrating common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees will not be found".
You're a couple decades late on this one, Bob. Ardipithecus? Orrorin? Sahelanthropus?
We've got the fossils, Bob.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by BobTHJ, posted 06-04-2010 5:05 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 5:25 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 160 of 385 (563391)
06-04-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Modulous
06-03-2010 8:40 PM


quote:
Observable science is drawing reasonable conclusions based upon observing the evidence (it doesn't have to be visible. X-rays can be observed for example).
Of course....this is what I meant. Using the word "visible" was a poor choice on my part.
quote:
Evolution is observable science. By your previous criticism you seem to be suggesting that it is not experimental science. As if all science has to be experimental in nature. Here is an astronomer, Charles Bailyn, Thomas E. Donnelley Professor of Astronomy and Physics and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Astronomy at Yale:
According to your quote you are correct - it seems I mixed the terms. My apologies.
quote:
Baramins don't give us a story that gives us a deep understanding of what's going on. Common ancestry does, it even leads to nontrivial predictions that have been tested.
Your first sentence is speculative opinion. Mine is the opposite.
I would be interested in reviewing successful predictions made by common ancestry - as I am constantly in search of data that might invalide the YEC model (I have yet to find any - but I'm keeping an open mind).
quote:
Unless you were one of the many billions of humans that can sometimes get it wrong even when the proof is staring them in the face. Not all proofs are necessarily persuasive to all human beings.
Quite true. Psalm 19:1 - The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
quote:
What we see is exactly what we should see if common ancestry were true. Baramins are a rudimentary observation of the same phenomenon by an intelligent group of people with insufficient resources to explore the nature of the 'kinds' any deeper than they did.
Why rest on such a concept? These people couldn't build computers, or save themselves from small pox. Why rely on their interpretations of their observations when more precise observations and more powerful interpretations of those observations has been made?
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to imply that baraminology is an ancient science only? Modern baraminologists would disagree with you.
quote:
Injecting agency in a time period which predates all known agency seems wildly premature and while I feel the temptation to do so for all sorts of things, I would hardly consider it reasonable.
So when exactly would it cease to be premature? What would be required for you and other darwinists to accept a supernatural cause for a natural phenomena?
Your use of the word premature is humorous, considering the mythology of most every ancient culture on earth contains a creation story (in many cases bearing striking similarity to each other). Humans have accepted a supernatural creation of life for as far back in history as we can determine - the concept of a naturalistic origin is both recent and laughable considering there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2010 8:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Blue Jay, posted 06-04-2010 6:17 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 166 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2010 7:07 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 06-05-2010 4:42 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 161 of 385 (563392)
06-04-2010 5:32 PM


Away for the Weekend
Sorry everyone - I didn't have time yet to respond to each post which warranted a response. I do intend to do so, but will be away for the weekend. I'll try and get back to this on Monday.

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 06-04-2010 8:10 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 162 of 385 (563397)
06-04-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by BobTHJ
06-04-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Getting down to details
No fossil in and of itself would falsify Baraminology - because baramins are based on the work of an omnipotent Creator, who could (theoretically) make anything he desired.
This would include feathered bats, would it not?
It could be falsified if clear evidence were shown for common ancestry between chimps and humans - but the evidence for this (at present) is far from conclusive.
What evidence would you accept for human/chimp common ancestry, outside of time travel? Any?
The fossil evidence clearly shows transitional fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.
The genomes of both humans and chimps carry irrefutable markers that point to common ancestry (e.g. shared pseudogenes, ERV's).
What more do you want?
The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques.
We don't even need radiometric dating to show evidence for evolution. Just the relative depth in the geologic column is enough, as is the mixture of characteristics in each fossil. We see the intermediate fossils that the theory of evolution says we should find (e.g. mammal-like reptiles, feathered dinosaurs, hominid transitionals) and none of the intermediates that we should not see (e.g. half mammal/half birds, half monkeys/half dogs). You yourself admit that a creator could create all types of intermediates, including those evolution says we should not find. How does this not indicate common ancestry and evolution?
You successfully list SOME assumptions - and I agree that these assumptions are made in most all cases, these are the common assumptions. Any conclusions based on evidence are assumptions as well. If new data or a more logical interpretation of the data comes to light then those conclusions can be shown to be false. I'm surprised you are having trouble seeing this.
Nope, those are the assumptions. I find it strange that you accuse me of not seeing these other assumptions and then fail to describe them yourself.
Phylogenetics is a useful tool ONLY if the assumption of common ancestry is correct.
Flatly wrong. It is useful period. Using an algorithm based on evolution scientists are capable of predicting the function of proteins with 96% accuracy.
quote:
PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.
Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America. bee@cs.berkeley.edu
Abstract
We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors. emphasis mine

Using the theory of evolution is more useful than just straight homology algorithms for predicting protein function. Can you show us anyone who is using an algorithm based on baraminology to predict protein function? No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by BobTHJ, posted 06-04-2010 5:05 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 5:54 PM Taq has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 163 of 385 (563399)
06-04-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by PaulK
06-04-2010 4:55 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
And since we are talking about creationist views of evolution it is hard to see how we can ignore the content of evolutionary theory unless we assume that creationists are ignorant of even the basics.
But, it's even harder to see how we can assume that creationists accept everything we accept about evolutionary theory. We can't just bring up all the tenets of evolutionary theory and expect that creationists will put them all into their model of the universe: something has to be different, otherwise, how are they not evolutionists?
To me, it seems pretty obvious that what they think is different is that "macroevolution" (however they choose to define it) does not happen the same way "microevolution" happens. They think that macro breaks the rules somehow: otherwise, they wouldn’t be arguing that it can’t happen*.
*This, of course, assumes that creationism is a logic-based enterprise, rather than the faith-based apologetics that it generally is, but I’m willing to grant them this for the sake of argument.
All indications are that they think "microevolution" happens through normal, hereditary descent; and "macroevolution" (however they define it) happens through magic.
Furthermore, given that Christian theological history includes a god being born to a human, I don’t think the idea that their position includes my "breaking the rules of descent" concept is really that far-fetched.
Edited by Bluejay, : Reworded last sentence.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2010 4:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2010 3:18 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 164 of 385 (563400)
06-04-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by PaulK
06-04-2010 5:03 PM


Re: It's still a dog!od.
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
The issue yet again is that the two definitions taken in combination define "macroevolution" to exclude ALL evolution (in fact the term - as an oxymoron - cannot refer to anything at all).
This means that all evolution is microevolution.
This contradicts creationist beliefs.
This sounds like you're talking about the internal consistency of the creationist position.
But, you just told me that you're not talking about the internal consistency of the creationist position.
Now, I'm very confused.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2010 5:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2010 3:29 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 165 of 385 (563403)
06-04-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by BobTHJ
06-04-2010 5:28 PM


Hi, Bob.
Welcome to EvC!
BobTHJ writes:
Your use of the word premature is humorous, considering the mythology of most every ancient culture on earth contains a creation story (in many cases bearing striking similarity to each other). Humans have accepted a supernatural creation of life for as far back in history as we can determine - the concept of a naturalistic origin is both recent and laughable considering there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it.
With this comment, I think you're just asking somebody to throw out a list of "recent" things that have been shown to outperform things that humans have accepted and used for as far back in history as we can determine. For instance, guns, cars and calculators easily outperform spears, chariots and abacuses, respectively.
Why is it that, even when faced with hordes of evidence of modern things outperforming ancient things, and very little, if any, evidence of the opposite, creationists and IDists still insist on rejecting the notion that modern theories can outperform ancient theories?
You don't really have to respond to this: I realize that you're swamped with opponents already.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by BobTHJ, posted 06-04-2010 5:28 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 6:21 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but 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