Proof for evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

#31

Post by Byblos » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:41 am

Blob wrote:
Jbuza wrote:This attitude that says that the only thing that one can scientifically theorize about origins is evolution is fascist, controlling and definitely not science.

Other scientific explanations of the diversity of life would be welcome. However even the most sophisticated formatting of creationism, i.e. ID, is no more scienctific than astrology, according to its most eminent advocate:

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Behe: Yes, that's correct.


As of now. Like any other proposed theory that's still in its infancy, ID will take a while to become accepted as mainstream scientific theory. There's no question, however, that that is the intent.

I do have to disagree with the following though:
Blob wrote: ... even the most sophisticated formatting of creationism, i.e. ID,...


As far as I know, creationism and ID are not the same thing, or at least one does not encompass the other. ID in its purest form (when it is not corrupted by religious zealots), is an attempt to show that the utter randomness presupposed by neo-darwinist evolution is not random after all. It sets out to show that there is a definite order in the universe, without resorting to religion of any kind. In fact, it does transcend religion. If and when it becomes an alternative mainstream scientific theory (and it is gaining ground; I mean after all it was mentioned several times on the West Wing's presidential campaign . If that's not proof of mainstream, I don't what is), then religion will come into play as to which one is best suited to carry the banner of ID.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#32

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:18 pm

Byblos wrote:As far as I know, creationism and ID are not the same thing, or at least one does not encompass the other.
Agreed ID and creationism are not the same animal.
Byblos wrote:ID in its purest form (when it is not corrupted by religious zealots), is an attempt to show that the utter randomness presupposed by neo-darwinist evolution is not random after all.
However this is the same for evolutionists, to find the mechinisms behind the evolution of life. There are basic physical laws which shaped the galaxies and nebulas. These same physical laws shape the atoms and determine their properties. The very same laws determine complex chemical and biophysical reactions. It is not utter randomness but order from a few basic laws of nature.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

#33

Post by Byblos » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:24 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:As far as I know, creationism and ID are not the same thing, or at least one does not encompass the other.
Agreed ID and creationism are not the same animal.
Byblos wrote:ID in its purest form (when it is not corrupted by religious zealots), is an attempt to show that the utter randomness presupposed by neo-darwinist evolution is not random after all.

However this is the same for evolutionists, to find the mechinisms behind the evolution of life. There are basic physical laws which shaped the galaxies and nebulas. These same physical laws shape the atoms and determine their properties. The very same laws determine complex chemical and biophysical reactions. It is not utter randomness but order from a few basic laws of nature.


Also agreed, and that is precisely what ID is after; that these very same complex laws (at both the micro and the macro levels) could not have just sprung about via natural selection ( at least the micro side). That is what I meant by utter randomness.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#34

Post by Jbuza » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:41 pm

gone
Last edited by Jbuza on Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#35

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:33 pm

Jbuza wrote: OK. Sorry. All the transitional forms that I know of have been hoaxes.
According to evolutionary theory, every form would be a transitional form because all forms are in a constant state of change.
Jbuza wrote: I am acknowledging nothing, I was simply asking what hoaxes you were talking about. I made no claims that nobody has made a hoax in creation, I don't happen to know of any, so I was wondering what you are referring to. If you don't know about the evolution ones I can provide details. So I ask the same.
May I say that many of the links you provided below contain some of the previously mentioned hoaxes.
Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
Human bones and artifacts found in Cambrian formations? Care to share?
Jbuza wrote
No. You won't believe it any more than you believe the reports of man and dinosaur footprints together.
Bgood wrote
Again you have me doubting.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc03.htm
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/strange.htm
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/purantime.htm
Metal vase precambrian
http://www.biblebelievers.com/powell2.html
http://www.rae.org/revev2.html
http://www.rae.org/ch07tud.html
Quite a few accounts, stories and annecdotes but very little in the way of actual evidence. Care to link to actual evidence. At least an image, but location would be nice. Take note if a paleontologist found such findings he would immediately upon verification report it to the scientific community and the world at large, and become a very famous and rich individual. Nevermind revolutionize science.
Jbuza wrote: http://www.caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/V5 ... ubbard.pdf
You will notice this one is from an evolutionist viewpoint, and since the human bones are not were they are supposed to be this is a “burial cave”.
So you beleive this is some sort of conspiracy? The data is there perhaps you can reinvestigate and uncover the truth?
Jbuza wrote: Should I continue there are lots more. Perhaps I should

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c13b.htm
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/fatoc.html
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/2_2/drutakarma.html
__
Bgood wrote
So did god create coyotes recently? Did God create poodles? What about labradoodles?

Don't know. No. No. It's likely that all three of these animals could interbreed.
Try it have a coyote and poodle interbreed.
So at which point are they too far apart so that they would have to have been created like that? Is a crow too different from a crane? What about a Jackdaw? Bluejay?
Jbuza wrote:Misinformed. (Are you trying to say I am the result of inbreeding and retarded? LOL) What did dogs evolve from? And what did that evolve from?
Dogs apparantly are related to coyotes according to you.
Jbuza wrote:There are [elephant or hippo bones with the dinosaur bones.]
Bgood wrote
Care to share, or again is this statement with no integrity?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/repr ... -Bible.pdf
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_pri ... _pilt.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2296451.stm
Interesting that the only one which has actual evidence doesn't support your view at all. All of these fossils are from the Pleistocene and not concurrent with dinosaurs.
Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
How did you come to this conclusion? Because you refuse to beleive does not make it a fabrication.

IT doesn't exist it is a fabrication. [In response to a question about the geological column]
I can't stop you finding random material to support your beleifs. But ask youself this? Are annecdotes and other personal accounts really a basis for scientific theories? Have you actually critically analyzed any of the relics or footprints for yourself? Or are they repeatedly mentioned over an over to the point that you dismiss any other evidence or beleifs?
Jbuza wrote:That my dog will be a chicken eventually
Bgood wrote
I specifically stated without knowing all the data. Terrible example it is well known dogs don't become chicken. But I suppose coyotes suddenly appearing in my kitchen is more likely.

I don't know all the Data. She is pregnant and the litter could contain recessive genetic matter or could mutate or something equally ridiculous
Rediculous like a dog with smaller teeth or larger ears? Or perhaps an extra eyelid? Or more eyelashes, perhaps thicker eyelashes? Is this what you mean by rediculous?
Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
Then why are you being so unreasonable in your arguments? At least try to see things from another perspective. Otherwise don't even bother, because from your own perspective everyone else is wrong and needs to be convinced. In this world view you see proponents of opposing views as people trying to convince you. No need to project your approach.

Sorry didn't know I was being unreasonable. I believe the Theory of evolution is trying to convince everyone that it is true, and perhaps your right that could be transference. Sorry I don't mean to be coming across that way, I will try harder. I had made the thread pointing out there are some grave problems with evolution and wanted to know what made people believe it in spite of them. I guess you feel that If I were reasonable that I would see the validity of the argument for evolution in spite of these numerous problems I am pointing out.
No that is not what I am saying, it is evident that you did not sincerely want to know why people accepted evolution. You ask for reasons and then unreasonable dismiss them.
Jbuza wrote:Is there something wrong with being utterly convinced that my beliefs are true?
no
Jbuza wrote:Given enough evidence it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that I could change my views. I am being genuine, I cannot understand believing evolution from the evidence I have seen so wondered what else convinced people that it was true.
As I pointed out earlier you dismissed all explanation off-hand so I doubt you are sincere.
Jbuza wrote:For instance Blob seems convinced in part by things he sees as weaknesses in alternative explanations. You had, instead of saying what was causal in your belief of evolution, simply refuted that there are any weaknesses or that the things I pointed out are weaknesses.
The following is what you considered weaknesses. Some of them I did not consider weaknesses.
Jbuza wrote:Numerous fossil hoaxes.
So the cold fusion hoax invalidated all of physics? The stones from the temple of David invalidated christianity? This is not a weakness of science but of your logic.
Jbuza wrote:Numerous human bones and artifacts as low as the cambrian.
Again you are entitled to believe random web-pages but there is no actual evidence as far as I am aware.
Jbuza wrote:No real cases of speciation. No transistional forms.
This I agree could be seen as a weakness.
Jbuza wrote:A history of extinction rather than adaptation.
Again how is this a weakness?
Jbuza wrote:Nowhere in the world does the geological column actually occur.
I will have to agree to disagree here.
Jbuza wrote:Evolution is mathmatically impossible
Really?
Jbuza wrote:Population studies indicate about 6000 years for man to reach his current number.
I suppose these population studies considered wars plague and advances in medicine and agriculture?
Jbuza wrote:The evidence simply is not there; the only place evidnece exists is within the theory itself.
Then why do you suppose so many people are studying it? Is it a mass dillusion?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#36

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:35 pm

Byblos wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:As far as I know, creationism and ID are not the same thing, or at least one does not encompass the other.
Agreed ID and creationism are not the same animal.
Byblos wrote:ID in its purest form (when it is not corrupted by religious zealots), is an attempt to show that the utter randomness presupposed by neo-darwinist evolution is not random after all.

However this is the same for evolutionists, to find the mechinisms behind the evolution of life. There are basic physical laws which shaped the galaxies and nebulas. These same physical laws shape the atoms and determine their properties. The very same laws determine complex chemical and biophysical reactions. It is not utter randomness but order from a few basic laws of nature.


Also agreed, and that is precisely what ID is after; that these very same complex laws (at both the micro and the macro levels) could not have just sprung about via natural selection ( at least the micro side). That is what I meant by utter randomness.
Ah ok, thanks for the clarification.
=)
In any case I would be delighted if ID became a competing theory.

But as you may have noticed earlier I have problems with irreducible complexity.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#37

Post by August » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:43 pm

I think I read earlier in the thread something about speciation. For clarity's sake, can someone (Bgood, Blob, others?) please give us a definition of what is meant by species and speciation?
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

#38

Post by Byblos » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:49 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:As far as I know, creationism and ID are not the same thing, or at least one does not encompass the other.
Agreed ID and creationism are not the same animal.
Byblos wrote:ID in its purest form (when it is not corrupted by religious zealots), is an attempt to show that the utter randomness presupposed by neo-darwinist evolution is not random after all.

However this is the same for evolutionists, to find the mechinisms behind the evolution of life. There are basic physical laws which shaped the galaxies and nebulas. These same physical laws shape the atoms and determine their properties. The very same laws determine complex chemical and biophysical reactions. It is not utter randomness but order from a few basic laws of nature.


Also agreed, and that is precisely what ID is after; that these very same complex laws (at both the micro and the macro levels) could not have just sprung about via natural selection ( at least the micro side). That is what I meant by utter randomness.

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification.
=)
In any case I would be delighted if ID became a competing theory.

But as you may have noticed earlier I have problems with irreducible complexity.


Yes I do, but only pertaining to blood clotting, and only assuming what you presented is scientifically valid. I'm not saying it's not, I am only saying I don't know enough to try to argue it, refute it, or even agree with it. I will leave that to the scientists (on both sides of the divide). Besides which, IC is but a small facet of ID. There will be many others.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

#39

Post by Byblos » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:02 pm

August wrote:I think I read earlier in the thread something about speciation. For clarity's sake, can someone (Bgood, Blob, others?) please give us a definition of what is meant by species and speciation?
Speciation

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

At least that's the dictionary definition, but I believe it is used by creationists in the context of rapid evolution to prove that many species could have rapidly evolved (split into completely different species) after the flood.

A good example would be the Culex Pipiens (bird-biting mosquitoes) that evolved into a new species almost overnight, literally.

Here's a link for more info on them:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... biters.asp

I'm sure BGood or Blob can come up with more examples but that is basically the gist of it.

Hope this helps.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#40

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:14 pm

Byblos wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:As far as I know, creationism and ID are not the same thing, or at least one does not encompass the other.
Agreed ID and creationism are not the same animal.
Byblos wrote:ID in its purest form (when it is not corrupted by religious zealots), is an attempt to show that the utter randomness presupposed by neo-darwinist evolution is not random after all.

However this is the same for evolutionists, to find the mechinisms behind the evolution of life. There are basic physical laws which shaped the galaxies and nebulas. These same physical laws shape the atoms and determine their properties. The very same laws determine complex chemical and biophysical reactions. It is not utter randomness but order from a few basic laws of nature.


Also agreed, and that is precisely what ID is after; that these very same complex laws (at both the micro and the macro levels) could not have just sprung about via natural selection ( at least the micro side). That is what I meant by utter randomness.

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification.
=)
In any case I would be delighted if ID became a competing theory.

But as you may have noticed earlier I have problems with irreducible complexity.


Yes I do, but only pertaining to blood clotting, and only assuming what you presented is scientifically valid. I'm not saying it's not, I am only saying I don't know enough to try to argue it, refute it, or even agree with it. I will leave that to the scientists (on both sides of the divide). Besides which, IC is but a small facet of ID. There will be many others.
I'm sure there will be.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#41

Post by Jbuza » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:15 pm

gone
Last edited by Jbuza on Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#42

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:20 pm

BGood, how do you propose that laws of physics and the likes can create information...ie, specified complexity.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#43

Post by Jbuza » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:20 pm

gone
Last edited by Jbuza on Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#44

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:25 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:BGood, how do you propose that laws of physics and the likes can create information...ie, specified complexity.
Start a new thread on specified complexity.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#45

Post by Blob » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:18 am

Thanks for the response Jbuza, which I have read carefully.

I'm wondering if this is a convenient place to conclude our discussion. We have both stated our opinions and are both beginning to repeat our points, I feel (nothing wrong with that per se but it may lead to mutual frustation if it continues; i.e. us both just thinking: "But why can't Blob/Jbuza see he is mistaken!??!!!?!" ;) ).

However, if you wish me to address any (or all) points in your lastest post please do let me know & I will happily oblige.

Blob
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

Post Reply