Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher
Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 10 (94047)
03-23-2004 5:07 AM


Hitchy:
Before we begin, let me apologize for the delay. Now then, if you are a high school science teacher with a degree in science education and in biology, allow me to assume you believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution (i.e. the development of higher from lower life forms over a period of approx. 3.6 billion years via gradual ammendments to the organisms involved). Please correct me if that was a faulty assumption (although I have never met a science teacher who DID NOT believe in Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism--But I guess that's what I get for going through public school and being raised by people whose salaries are paid by taxes).
Moreover, If we are to engage in a legitimate debate, then let's first begin with a clear definition of "evolution." After all, evolution (like "Gay" or "cool") may indeed bear seperate meanings. Therefore, I would be inclined to define the meaning of the very word we are discussing before going any further. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would define "evolution" according to seperate categories:
1) Cosmic evolution--The origin/state of matter (i.e. big bang)
2) Stellar evolution--The origin/state of stars
3) Chemical evolution--The origin of the 91 other elements from Hydrogen
4) Biological evolution--The origin/state of life (biogenesis)
5) Macro-evolution--The gradual change from one "kind" to another (common ancestry between all living things)
6) Micro-evolution--(also called "Variation" or "Mutation" or "adaptation) the organisms' abilities to change and adapt to fit local conditions.
Some say that (4) does not pertain to Darwinism, but the simple fact is that the origin of life from nonliving matter is vital for Darwinism to prevail (after all, the idea--even the teaching of Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, etc.--tries desperately to produce an explanation for the origin of life from nonliving matter, and when they fail repeatedly I have found that some scientists tend to slide back on the idea that it is not pertinent to the study of evolution, rather than defending thier first statements on the matter).
Furthermore, I would like to explain "KIND" -- as used in (5). This may be difficult for some to grasp (seeing how many people I've discussed this with don't even fathom the principles or terms OUTSIDE of western science) but since I am a Christian I am going to use the Bible. Genesis chapter 1 says "let them bring forth after their kind." Therefore, a creationist who reads into it enough will tell you that the Bible defines a "kind" as organisms that can bring forth (i.e. if two sexual-reproducing organisms together can bring forth then they are the same "kind." Likewise, if an asexual organism brings forth than any offspring it produces is the same "kind").
Since I feel that I have established exaclty WHAT we will be discussing, let the discussion begin! I would first like to say that I am in no way prepared to argue against (6); on one hand I do not even disagree with it (it does in now way contradict the Bible and its teaching of creation from six literal days), and furthermore, it is scientifically documented (observed) that adaptation, genetic variation, speciation, and chance mutations can (and often do) take place. However, I am in every method possible prepared to fight the idea that (6) can be given as evidence for (1-5). In other words, speciation within the same "kind" of creature and chance mutation does in no way prove the belief that every living organism on earth share a common ancestor; nor does it prove that humans and apes share a common ancestor, or the idea that protozoa and amoeba share a common ancestor, or the concept that bananas and coconuts share a common ancestor, etcetera.
Firstly, (1) is not proven by science ("science" = "knowledge through observation and experimentation"). The idea that all matter in the universe was condensed within an infinitesimal (non-existent) space and has since the big bang been expanding is neither proven nor provable. Let me point out that no human alive (that I know of) knows for sure the amount of matter in the universe, nor the age of it all, and therefore the concept that all matter is the same age and hails from the same infinitesimal region within the past 20,000,000,000 years remains a product of speculation based primarily on the Hubble Constant and the observation of the red shift. By the way, the red shift and Hubble Constant merely proves (if anything) that stars might possibly be moving away--spreading out--from each other. But that does not prove the big bang (after all, Isaiah 40:22 gives an equally-possible theory as to the red shift: "...God stretched out the heavens"). Before moving on, think about that phrase and, assuming the Bible is correct, what it might indicate about our observation in astronomy.
Secondly, I am not going to argue against stellar evolution; the idea that stars are being born still does not prove that the Bible is wrong and therefore is not worth the time of a creationist to fight against. Nevertheless, let me quickly point out that star-births are speculative theories--if I said that stars are never born, but rather, the observation of "star-births" is really only based on the dust clearing and revealing a star behind thereof that already was there, you would have a tough time refuting my argument with empirical data.
Thirdly, chemical evolution is based on the notion that the universe shortly after the big bang was composed of only hydrogen (an element consisting of--unless in the ionic state--only one electron and one proton) which has since produced the remaining elements on the periodic chart. Now, I am not speaking for all the scientists out there because there exist people who still believe in Darwinian evolution without buying (3) as a valid scientific theory.
Fourthly, all attempts to create life from nonliving matter has yet failed (the formation of a few amino acids does not count). Lest we forget, the biogenesis-experiments (attempts to create life from nonliving matter) were utilizing perfect laboratory conditions. I did not begin this topic to try and offer evidence AGAINST the origin of life from nonliving matter; however, the mere fact that life does not arise by chance in the laboratory-conditions created by Urey, Miller, and their predecesors leads me to conclude that it is even LESS likely for life to originate by chance in earth's so-called primitive atmosphere.
Finally, it has come to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles: the speciation and branching of all forms of life that exist today--and that which have come before us--from a common ancestor through slow gradual process. I would be extremely appreciative if you could offer empirical data (scientific evidence) to support theory (5) of evolution. Also, since this is a new topic, let us assume that no science has been discussed prior (and therefore any arguments raised in any other post does not count here without at least recapitulating the arguments). I ask this favor for the purpose of allowing us both to focus off of the other posts and topics on this site and turn our attention solely to this thread and the discussions that come thereof.
Naturally, I would expect the existence of non-functional pseudogenes ("pseudo" + "gene" = "gene" + "falsely so-called") to arise as evidence for theory (5). On one hand, the puzzling existence of pseudogenes can be explained (and essentially dismissed) easiest when observing them from an evolutionary perspective. However, that does not allow us to conclude that it is evidence for the idea that we share a common ancestor with all non-human organisms (or that the latter share a common ancestor). After all, perhaps the so-called pseudogenes serve a purpose within our genetic code that we have yet overlooked (which is quite possible since the human genome project's objective was NOT to determine the specific FUNCTION of our genes, but rather merely to reveal the genetic code's basic layout and appearence).
The preceding argument for theory (5) evolution is probably the most difficult to explain for creationists, but does not in any way provide empirical evidence for common ancestry between different "kinds" of organisms. The only thing that pseudogenes do for us--so far that we know of--is make more sense when looked at from an evolutionary perspective.
Furthermore, transitional fossils--gap-fillers for the missing links--and structural similarity, which by the way is a topic that can be broken down into many topics of discussion, does not suggest the existence of a common ancestor any more than it proves that all living things have a common creator. First off, even the most radical Darwinist--if speaking honestly--will admit that the number of transitional fossils in the geologic record remains few and hard to come by, and therefore even if used to further the argument for theory (5) it cannot be used as irrefutable and empirical evidence because the transitional fossils are very limited in abundance and thus not valid evidence for theory (5). Moreover, the transitional fossils--however limited--nearly exlusively work to fill gaps between species, but not "kinds." For instance, there exists no observable transition between a reptile and bird. And archaeopteryx is a bad example because it can be argued that it was 100% bird. The existence of teeth and claws in some modern birds (swans, ostriches, emus, etc.) provides ample reasoning that it cannot be demonstrated that archaeopteryx was anything but an extinct species of bird. Now, the preceding statement held just merely an example of how transitional fossils are both few and non-empirical in the way of providing evidence for theory (5). Lastly, and I ask you this in honesty and good faith, how can it be demonstrated that the existence of transitional fossils suggests a common ancestor RATHER than a common creator?
Now, I kid you not, I used to be the most fervent, solid evolutionist thinkable. It was the way I was raised--I can still remember the thoughts racing through my mind as I sit in high school biology class: "you just don't dare believe in anything against evolution or you'll forfeit your grade and credibility in science class." Seem far-fetched from a teacher's point of view? Believe it--I felt as though I was walking on eggshells when I began to doubt evolution theory. Having been raised on movies like "Lost World" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the more recent "Jurassic Park," and reading pop-up books on dinosaurs as a child, and entering jr. high and high school as a student of evolutionary teaching--tax-supported institutions, of course--I once felt as though evolution was SUCH a solid fact (as much as the fact that clouds are primarily composed of water) that I truly believed there was no other option. Guess what, I have made a 180-degree turnaround since then and it was because of my study of science rather than inspite of science. It's amazing what one learns when they study science ("science" = "knowledge through observation and experimentation") from a non-evolutionary standing. I have found that if I ignore any biases or concepts of origins and study ONLY the observations before me, I can learn and comprehend much more than if I were to enter an experiment or study with a previously-obtained bias in favor of one theory of origins over another. Or, in simpler terms, whether true or not, any prejudice in favor of evolution--I have found--is a hindrance to intelligent conclusions drawn from scientific research.
Also, since evolution theory is obviously widely-supported by public funds, I then wonder how the theory would do in the absence of tax support. Would it still prevail or woud it crumble if all taxes that support the teaching of evolution in museums, universities, and public schools were withdrawn and the theory of evolution was forced to resort to support by private organizations? I was just pondering out of curiousity, that's all.
I look forward to hearing from you, Hitchy.
Sincerely,
Servant
P.S. This thread was started to discuss with Hitchy only. I was invited to begin this thread for the purpose of discussing evolution and creation with a high school science teacher, and will therefore not be responding to any others. (However, if anybody wants to confront me elsewhere, let me know and start a new thread elsewhere). Thanks .

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2004 5:22 AM Servant2thecause has replied
 Message 9 by hitchy, posted 03-23-2004 9:00 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 10 (94052)
03-23-2004 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:07 AM


Don't you think you're hitting him with a lot at once? Since his expertise is in biology why do you expect him to defend topics in such varied disciplines as cosmology, physics, nuclear chemistry, and geology?
And if you don't want participation by anyone but Hitchy, why didn't you post this topic in the "Great Debate" thread, where topics are limited to two participants?
How come you're posting so much stuff that has already been refuted at this board?
Since your definition of "kind" is exactly identical in function to the definition of species, why didn't you just say "species"? And wouldn't then the observation of new species unable to breed with their original populations refute your point that new "kinds" can't arise?
These questions lead me to believe that you're not interested in actual debate, but rather setting up a shooting gallery where you pick whatever topic you think Hitchy is least likely to have expertise in. If I were him I'd do nothing but post links to the research you should already have done in regards to the refutations of all of your points.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:07 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 6:07 AM crashfrog has replied

Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 10 (94064)
03-23-2004 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
03-23-2004 5:22 AM


Minor side note:
Sorry if I said I would not be talking to anybody but Hitchy, but your lies angered me.
First off, Hitchy invited me to start a thread in the education section, which is the only reason why I am not posting this thread in the debate section.
Furthermore, I am not trying to pick areas of study outside of Hitchy's expertise. Rather, I am trying to produce areas of discussion that cover a wide area of science (as biology and earth science at the high school level seem to cover a wide range of topics) and Hitchy mentioned that he/she had degrees (plural) in science and taught both biology and earth science.
Moreover, you are wrong on the topic of kinds v. species. A horse, donkey, and zebra are not considered the same species, but they ARE the same kind according to the Bible's definition. Also, a wolf, a cyote, and a huskey are not the same species, but they are the same kind as described in the Bible.
Also, the arguments have been discussed, attacked, critiqued, and ridiculed, but never legitimately refuted (as it pertains to science). And I brought them up here because, if you READ my first post, you will see that my intention on bringing up topics that are already discussed elsewhere was to discuss one-on-one with Hitchy and disregard speculative gibberish that was thrown into other threads.
Also, why are you getting off topic? You seem to dwell on the fact that you think you refutted every major argument posted by a creationist and therefore have proven your point, when indeed all you have done is shown me that you a really good at distracting people from talking about what we came here to talk about--evolution, creation, and the evidence for and against.
Sincerely,
Servant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2004 5:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2004 6:17 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2004 6:22 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 4 of 10 (94071)
03-23-2004 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 6:07 AM


Re: Minor side note:
The bible describes there as being 'kinds' of cattle. Your definition is not biblical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 6:07 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 10 (94073)
03-23-2004 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 6:07 AM


Moreover, you are wrong on the topic of kinds v. species. A horse, donkey, and zebra are not considered the same species, but they ARE the same kind according to the Bible's definition.
How clever of you to pick examples of recent speciation events. But your model fails for more seperate examples:
Are housecats and tigers in the same kind? They can't breed. Are all kinds of crabs the same kind, as Kent Hovind has claimed? They can't interbreed.
How would you tell the difference between two organisms from similar but originally separate kinds, and two organisms from the same kind who, through what I imagine you term "microevolution", no longer have the ability to interbreed?
It's disingenuous of you to launch into a debate that centers around a term so nebulous you can easily shift the goalposts, and I won't stand and watch it happen.
Also, the arguments have been discussed, attacked, critiqued, and ridiculed, but never legitimately refuted (as it pertains to science).
I look forward to Hitchy proving you quite wrong. At this board alone I have seen each of these arguments refuted again and again. If Hitchy doesn't care to find relevant threads to prove it, I'm more than willing to. It's up to him - he's got dibs.
evolution, creation, and the evidence for and against.
And any time you care to address those issues rather than playing Hovind's Greatest Hits, I'm at your disposal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 6:07 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 6:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Servant2thecause
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 10 (94078)
03-23-2004 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
03-23-2004 6:22 AM


First of all, I am not trying to prove evolution wrong. Rather, I am just demonstrating that it cannot be proven correct. Take that for what it says (I can already tell you'll try to pervert that in some way like you do all the other statements). I will restate an earlier statement: "how can it be proven that structural similarities suggests a common ancestor RATHER than a common creator?" All attempts of an evolutionist trying to answer that question scientifically (without a previous prejudice in favor of evolution) have as yet failed.
Also, please explain how my comment that pseudo-genes do not prove evolution has a legitimate scientific rebuttal behind it.
also, Mr. John, read a little deeper and you'll find that my definition of kinds is in fact Biblical: Genesis 1:25 says "...cattle after their kind..." Note that cattle would consist of: zebu, ox, holstein cow, etcetera (different species). The Bible does not say that there is more than one "kind" of cattle--it just says "cattle after their KIND" (emphasis added). The Bible in no way gives an inclination that there is more than one kind of cattle. I trust Genesis chapter 1 as word-for-word accuracy (KJV) and the mention of cattle simply says "cattle after their kind..." How did you then draw that conclusion that my definition of "KIND" is inconsistent with the Bible. My definition of kind is two animals that can bring forth offspring together, and the Bible does not (and doesn't NEED to) explain the concept that there may have at one time been more than one type of cattle (after all, the Hebrew word translated in that verse into "cattle" pertained to domesticated animal, not just cows). Once, again, however, we are getting off topic--let's try and stick to evolution/creation (that's why we're here, isnt' it)?
Thanks again for the time.
Don't take offense to this, but once I get a reply from Hitchy to my first post I will be ignoring most other posters to this thread for the purpose of discussing evolution and creation with a high school science teacher, one-on-one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2004 6:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2004 7:13 AM Servant2thecause has not replied
 Message 8 by Quetzal, posted 03-23-2004 8:18 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 10 (94085)
03-23-2004 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 6:43 AM


Also, please explain how my comment that pseudo-genes do not prove evolution has a legitimate scientific rebuttal behind it.
That? You didn't even make an argument. It's not the existence of pseudogenes that suggests common ancestry. It's the fact that pseudogenes are shared among organisms for whom taxonomy suggests a common ancestor. You didn't seem to address this point, as far as I could tell. If you feel you did, perhaps you could elucidate?
Oh, and keep in mind that while we may not know the ultimate function of every stretch of genetic code, we do know exactly which areas are expressed as protiens. When we say "pseudogenes", we do so with great confidence that those code sequences are not used to make protiens.
Until Hitchy jumps in do you think you could address my points about the definition of "kinds"? That's central to the debate of "macroevolution" occuring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 6:43 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 10 (94094)
03-23-2004 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 6:43 AM


Don't take offense to this, but once I get a reply from Hitchy to my first post I will be ignoring most other posters to this thread for the purpose of discussing evolution and creation with a high school science teacher, one-on-one.
Just a point of order, here. If you wish to conduct a one-on-one debate without input from other posters, you and hitchy need to petition one of the Admins (via email, theoretically) to set up a Great Debate topic. These are moderated, completely free of interference, and judged by Admin (or you can suggest an alternative judging system) who awards points based on the quality of the responses - not on which side of the fence you're on. The last GD topic was "won" by a creationist (although IMO it was by default, rather than on merit). Still, that's the way to go if you don't want anyone else involved. Trying to limit participation by personal fiat in an open forum is, hmm, both arrogant and unlikely to be successful. The only downside from your stance I think in a GD format is that you will be limited to one specific topic, not all over the map from nucleogenesis to cosmogenesis to macroevolution.
edited to add link to "kinds discussion": kindly creationists since no one's allowed to post on this thread apparently.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 6:43 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 9 of 10 (94100)
03-23-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Servant2thecause
03-23-2004 5:07 AM


Wow! That's A lot to Talk About
Thanks for getting back to me, servant. I also appreciate everyone else's input. I will be addressing you as much as my schedule will allow right now and ask for everyone's patience ahead of time.
Let's start with my intro--I am a he and I consider myself a rational skeptic. I question evolution as much as anyone else. However, the more I question everything that would fall under the umbrella of evolution, the more I see how factual certain aspects are. For example, the theory of common descent is pretty much a fact. If I limit myself to a purely scientific viewpoint, then there is no way I can say that we do not share a common ancestor with every other organism out there and that there is a nested hierarchy that shows how organisms are interrelated. The evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that to decry it as false after seeing the evidence is academically dishonest.
Now, if I go outside the boundaries of science--which would then make my endevor non-scientific--I could come up with any explanation I want. Science is what scientists do. We come up with naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena that is verifiable (testable), falsifiable, and based on natural laws. I we go outside of the strict definition of science then the whole field becomes bankrupt for lack of not only boundaries to what we can know but also a foundation on which we can build our knowledge. I cannot back up anything with the Upanishads or the Bahatva-Gida (I think that's how they are spelled). I am certain that you would balk at anything I bring up from any other religious tradition, so please don't attempt to intertwine the bible with science.
The biological species concept might have difficulty dealing with certain organisms intrabreeding and with asexually reproducing organisms, but it is a working scientific definition with great explanatory power. "Kind" means nothing in scientific circles. "Kind" is as subjective as the religion that spawned it. Please, let's not waste anymore time on a term that is useless, since that will make the argument useless. Time for class. More later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-23-2004 5:07 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 10 of 10 (94118)
03-23-2004 11:23 AM


Thread copied to the To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher thread in the The Great Debate forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024