Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A fatal logical flaw in creationism?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 214 (101634)
04-21-2004 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by desdamona
04-21-2004 5:45 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
quote:
Life cannot just be invented on it's own by mens hands.
But life can evolve in the hands of men. Does that make evolution true then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 5:45 PM desdamona has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 6:13 PM Loudmouth has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 214 (101645)
04-21-2004 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by desdamona
04-21-2004 6:13 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
quote:
Then you see something most of us do not see.
Dolly the sheep still came from sheep.No shock there,so what do you mean by evolve? Evolve means to me that life happened on it's own by chance not on purpose.Evolving is not something that just happens on purpose,thats where the idea comes from remember?
Evolution is about the diversification of life. Abiogenesis, a theory separate from evolution, is a theory about how life started. As an analogy, iron smelting is abiogenesis and making a car is evolution. It doesn't matter how the iron was mined or smelted, as long as it fits the requirements you can make a car out of it. The same thing for evolution. All evolution requires is an imperfect replicator. How that replicator came to be does not effect the mechanisms of evolution. Evolve means to change, not to come from nothing. The evolution of airplane design is different than the discovery of air flight.
However, evolution is a blind algorithm. It plays by certain rules, but the outcome is defined by the rules, not by a preset purpose. Those rules include mutation, selection, and environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 6:13 PM desdamona has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 6:56 PM Loudmouth has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 214 (101668)
04-21-2004 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by desdamona
04-21-2004 6:56 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
quote:
Then you believe that life was already here when things,creatures,ect...
Of course. Biological evolution requires the presence of life. This should be no more surprising than me saying that I need a deck of cards before I can play poker. Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life."
quote:
began to evolve,yet there is no evidence that anything ever evolved.There should be alot of evidence if it had,but there is none.
There are vasts amounts of evidence, none of which has falsified the theory of evolution. Just for a primer, go to the talkorigins.org 29+ evidences for Macroevolution. One of the major flaws in creationist logic is that they claim that there is no evidenciary support for evolution. By those who are educated, this is a flat out lie. For those who don't know any better, this is something that they shouldn't recite after being shown how much evidence for evolution there really is. My "favorite" line of evidence is ERV (endogenous retroviral insertions). These viral DNA sequences found within our ells are strong evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
quote:
The Piltdown man and many others were proven hoaxes,and big jokes,and they were invented by evolutionists.
They were found to be hoaxes BY evolutionists, not creationists. Science has and always will rid itself of hoaxes without the help of creationists. Also, you may not know but there at least a hundred ape-like hominid fossils that aren't hoaxes. Maybe you could make a comment about those instead of the hoaxes that never factored in to the construction of the theory of evolution.
As a personal note, I am not here to move you away from Christianity. I am trying to show you how pseudoscientific theories, such as creationism, are not an effort to expand our knowledge. Instead, these theories look to support a religious dogma at the expense of ignoring falsifying evidence. If I said that the Earth was flat because Jesus loves me, would you accept that the world were flat? Science strives for an areligious, objective view of the natural world and leaves the spiritual world to religion/spirituality.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 6:56 PM desdamona has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by desdamona, posted 04-21-2004 8:26 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 214 (102186)
04-23-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by desdamona
04-22-2004 10:01 PM


Re: From A fellow CHRISTIAN
Hey Des, just wanted to answer some of your questions about how evolution is studied. Hopefully you will start to understand how science is actually practiced.
quote:
Because Evolution is not proven to be an absolute fact by science,it must take some faith to believe it.
Not one theory, including evolution, is taken on faith nor accepted as being 100% proven. Some theories are trusted for their accurate track record, but if data ever came out that falsified the theory, then that theory would be thrown out. For instance, Newton's laws of motion are actually incorrect and have been thrown out as describing all of the data. The theory of relativity actually is a better model to fit all of the data. However, for slow velocities Newton's laws are still close enough and are still used in most circumstances.
quote:
Can you observe evolution taking place? Reproducing is not the same thing.
Yes we can. We have observed bacteria that adapt to new environments, such as the nylon bug, and we also see populations splitting into two new species. Evolution has been observed, and observed evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution extends what we have observed into the fossils we see in the geologic column. The theory is that natural mechanisms that guide the adaptation and speciation of organisms today were the same mechanisms that diversified life millions of years ago. The theory of evolution is an extension of observed facts we see today.
quote:
Can you test evolution? Can you test evolution and draw your conclusions from these tests that it's a known fact?
Like I said before, no theory is proven to be a fact. Only observations are facts, the model that tries to explain the facts are theories. And yes, evolution can be tested, or rather the model of evolution can be tested. Here is a sample of a few broad tests that evolution has passed:
1. The genetic differences between two species is in direct relationship to the span of time since commmon ancestory. That is, the farther back in time that the two species shared a common ancestor, as seen in the fossil record, the greater the dissimilarity between their genetic sequences. Evolution passes this test.
2. Phylogeny should be related to the age of fossils. That is, the evolutionary tree built from differences in body shape should be reflected in the ages of the fossils. The body shape tree is made independently of the age, but the two still match up. This test shows how the fossils are laid down according to evolutionary mechanisms, or the inheritance of morphology and adaptation of new morphology. Combine this with the genetic data above and you have three independent variables that all come to the same conclusion, evolution probably happened.
3. ERVs. ERV is an acronym for endogenous retroviral insertions. Very rarely, a virus will not kill the cell that it infects. When this happens, the virus leaves an imprint in the host's genome. The chances of two organisms having the same exact insertion in the same exact spot in their genome is astronomical. However, we find that humans and chimps share ERVs that are too similar to have happened by chance. The only way to explain this is that humans and chimps branched from the same parent species. In this way, the insertion only had to happen once, instead of happening in the same exact way in two different species.
These are just a few tests that evolution has been put under, and has passed. Maybe you could give us an example of how to test for a young earth and created species?
quote:
Can you verify evolution? Is it repeatable? Can you repeat evolution?
Any of the 3 tests above can be repeated with any fossil, any living species, or any phylogenetic tree. The DNA sequences and fossil shape are repeatable observations that anyone has access to. However, we can't go back in time and observe it first hand. In this way, evolutionary investigation is much like an episode of CSI, looking for evidence that should be there if the crime were committed. Forensic science within criminology shares quite a few parallels with evolutionary science.
quote:
All of us observe life each day.Where is the life that is evolving?
Every time an organism reproduces. Each new organism (with perhaps the exception of clonal species) holds a unique DNA sequence that has never been seen before. Even you have DNA mutations that neither your father or mother had. Each new generation is a new step in an evolutionary walk. However, it takes quite a few steps/generations before we can decipher where that walk is leading. It is kind of like looking at your TV screen up close to where you are know longer able to see the big picture. It is only after multiple generations and lots of measurements that we begin to see the larger picture.
I hope all of this helps, as it seems you are becoming intrigued by our little corner of the internet. As I and many others have said before, you can be a evolutionary scientist and a christian. I grew up in a church and was influenced by creationist teachings. However, the evidence for evolution was so overwhelmingly huge that I could no longer deny it. Through all of this, I never questioned the existence of God because of my scientific understanding of nature, nor did nature seize to be a wonderment that fascinates me till this day. All I can say is good luck, and keep your ears/eyes/mind open and take the attitude that admitting you may be wrong is a step towards increasing your knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by desdamona, posted 04-22-2004 10:01 PM desdamona has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2004 1:49 PM Loudmouth has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 214 (102204)
04-23-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by NosyNed
04-23-2004 1:49 PM


Re: Big Words
quote:
A very nice post, Loudmouth, but you've used rather a lot of big words. I do not mean this as a slight to Des. At an introductory level you need to make it simpler and clearer.
Thanks for the help Ned, and Lam too. I've been writing scientific papers too long so it's nice to have laymen looking over my shoulder. Everyday words for me are quite different than everyday words for the non-scientist, it's a hard habit to break. You've both done a great job of demystifying the scientific jargon into easily understood arguments. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2004 1:49 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2004 2:56 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 171 by coffee_addict, posted 04-23-2004 4:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 214 (102208)
04-23-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by NosyNed
04-23-2004 2:56 PM


Re: Big Words
quote:
That remains to be seen. The fossil record, genetics, phologony match has been posted a number of times here. There has been no hint that the literalists understand it at all. I think it needs to be made much, much simpler yet.
Which gets to the root of the problem. You have people arguing against a theory who can't understand the evidence that supports it. Kind of like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue because someone told them that the color blue was evil. It would seem that the average evolutionist knows more about science and biology in general than the average creationist. When I offer theological perspectives on the Bible, I am ready to retract any statement if someone shows me to be in error. I am not a theologian and am not as experienced in that realm. However, it seems that scientists aren't given the same respect. Instead, they are told that everything that scientists have discovered over the last 150 years is wrong. They are wrong not because of scientific reasons, but because people don't like the conclusions. This is my main source of frustration, showing evidence that is not in question to support a theory whose conclusion is disliked. I guess it would be easier to take the creationist route, start with a likeable conclusion.
I guess the moral for creationists is this. If you think evolution is wrong, then study biology and figure out where it is wrong. Studying the Bible for answers in science won't get you very far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2004 2:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by SRO2, posted 04-23-2004 3:27 PM Loudmouth 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