Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Wed May 02, 2007 12:33 pm

Thanks guys, I felt like I was all alone there for a minute

Ok, now that I've had time to calm down, let me address things.

I've thought about it and let me put things down in a sort of proof. We can then take things one by one.

1) Would you agree that species in a population have various phenotypes? There are differences in charactieristics. There may be polar bears with longer claws or some with shorter claws. Some finches with bigger beaks and some with smaller?

2) Do you agree that these characteristics may be controlled by genes. That is, some of us have genes for blue eyes and some for brown eyes? The finches with bigger beaks have genes that code for bigger beaks, conversely the finches with smaller beaks have the genes that code for smaller beaks. NOTICE THAT NOWHERE AM I SAYING THAT THESE ARE MISTAKES BY GOD. God designed some of us with some genes and others with other genes.

3) Would you agree that these characteristics governed by genes SOMETIMES fit the environment better. than other characteristics. The larger beaks can exert exert more force than smaller beaks and thus break open larger seeds. Conversely, the smaller beaks can open seeds with less energy needed to built the beak. Polar bears with longer claws may be able to break open thicker ice.

4) Do you agree that environments can fluctuate with regards to resources? Some years more rain, more seeds, more salmon, less salmon, more wind, less wind, less oxygen dissolved in water...etc

5) Would these changes in the environment mean that some animals (or plants) within the population might have characteristics that fit the resources available. Again, some years the finches with larger beaks might fit the bill

(oh, that was bad!) whereas other years with more rain different seeds, smaller beaks might suffice.

6) If the finches with larger beaks have more babies that year and conversely the finches with smaller beaks have fewer babies that year, then they pass down their genes for larger beaks and then the next generation of finches will have a higher frequency of finches with larger beaks. Maybe this year the rainfall is different and the opposite matings occur. the next generation will switch back to smaller beaks.

7) Now, whether or not these environmental changes occur as a result of normal shifts in weather patterns or the influence of man, the animals (and plants) will survive or reproduce according to their matching the environment. Thus, (AGAIN! in fact I think three times now) IF we are changing the environment of the polar bears and IF this is change is too drastic for the polar bears (ie they do not have the necessary genes to allow some of them to match the environment) then they will die. It is selection, but it is selection brought about by our influence (bolded so it is clear that this is my answer) it is both. It does not have to be one or the other despite your insistence.

Now, all of these are the basic elements (some other stuff about competition and resources but we'll start there) of natural selection. The evolutionist may claim that this is without God but that is THEIR statement. Nothing in here excludes God. Notice that right now there is nothing about changing species. Evolutionists will include a last postulate which is the "over time, mutations build up and new selective pressures may bring about speciation" . This is where the evolutionists and I part ways. At this time I am not convinved that mutations have the power to have brought about the changes they claim. However, God would have created species to be able to withstand minor fluctuations in their niches because of the differences in genes (NOT MISTAKES!) allows for minor changes in repoductive succes.

Now, I have never strayed from the topic these all have to do with populations, selection, and genetics. Why don't you go through each of these points and maybe we can be clearer about what you disagree with.

Regards (off to walk the dog and watch our LAX game)
Zoegirl

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:41 pm

What kind of dog is it?

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Wed May 02, 2007 2:17 pm

You seem to have a few misunderstandings regarding science. Science is about observations, we watch and observe to see what happens

if i had a dime for everytime some mental moron, intellectually challenged, braindead person said something like that to me, i could retire.

i was going to answer your post but your response showed me that you think more of yourself and science than you should.

i wouldn't talk when you make statements such as the following:

we watch and observe to see what happens

so if your friend has fallen from a boat and is drowning, you would watch and observe, saying he/she didn't have the genetics to make it to safety?

IT WASN'T A GENETIC QUESTION! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS. it required a real answer and if you are incapable of answering simple questions please refrain from tackling the tough ones.

as i said before, scientists have no place in theological questions except in a very minor supporting role. God has done things very specifically which science has shown they cannot comprehend and they need to remove themselves from thsoe studies until they do.

science is not geared to follow God's thinking but man's, it is designed, as i said, to not provide the correct answer and if any christian follows the secular rules of science then they are not following God. you can't do both.

God was very clear, His ways and thoughts were not ours so it is useless to use unregenerated thought to try and figure out why God did what he did. you are missing the boat and the inability to provide clear answers makes you of no value to a world that is dying and going to hell.

limiting your studies to the natural is not addressing problems when the supernatural is involved andignoring the supernatural factor then you are not using all the data available and your theories and conclusions will be misleading as zoegirl so aptly proved.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:02 pm

Arch, you said "subtle insults" earlier. You claimed to be leaving the forum due to them. No you say "MEntal Moron, Braindead" etc. Not so subtle

I also would like to point out that science was practically invented by Christians. Now, maybe we've strayed, but the point is that Science has a VERY active role in Christianity. CHristianity is, in fact, the only religion i know of (i'm not omniscient) that Science has a role in. Most others are pretty off-base when it comes down to what Science says. Christianity, however, tells us to continually seek. Only if we do will we find the answers. We can't let the seeking be the goal, however, which is what many do. They get caught up with the seeking and learning that they miss the important stuff.

However, those who get the important stuff are no better than those who don't. All are sinners and all are not adequate. You should probably stop insulting everyone aroudn you (it does, after all, make us christians look bad) and start constructively debating.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:38 pm

archaeologist wrote:
You seem to have a few misunderstandings regarding science. Science is about observations, we watch and observe to see what happens
if i had a dime for everytime some mental moron, intellectually challenged, braindead person said something like that to me, i could retire.

Ah yes, good debating skills, insult the other person...what's next, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "can't hear you!"?

archaeologist wrote: i was going to answer your post but your response showed me that you think more of yourself and science than you should.

God gave us senses to us, we are to observe. God assigned Adam the role of having stewardship over the garden, you think he wasn't supposed to observe?

we watch and observe to see what happens

archaeologist wrote: IT WASN'T A GENETIC QUESTION! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS. it required a real answer and if you are incapable of answering simple questions please refrain from tackling the tough ones.

Ok, get it through your head
Yes, it is. This is where you are showing your ignorance. You asked about whether I think the bears are changing because of microevolution or human involvement. THis ultimatly comes down genetics either way. If they have the genetic flexibility to withstand these major questions.

archaeologist wrote: science is not geared to follow God's thinking but man's, it is designed, as i said, to not provide the correct answer and if any christian follows the secular rules of science then they are not following God. you can't do both.

Oy!! So again you are mistaking the PROCESS of science with the CORRUPTION of mankind USING the process. The process of controlled experimentation is, if done correctly, simply a study of cause and effect. Yes, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Therefore we are prone to bias in the development of experiments and interpretation of data. And of course the scientists that have rejected God would be naturally inclined to biases....what's new? Hurling insults, however, and misunderstanding both the process and data is never going to win hearts, not to mention debates.

archaeologist wrote: God was very clear, His ways and thoughts were not ours so it is useless to use unregenerated thought to try and figure out why God did what he did. you are missing the boat and the inability to provide clear answers makes you of no value to a world that is dying and going to hell.

limiting your studies to the natural is not addressing problems when the supernatural is involved andignoring the supernatural factor then you are not using all the data available and your theories and conclusions will be misleading as zoegirl so aptly proved.

Useless to use unregenerated thought?!?? Good grief, so we shouldn't think at all? And what of my points? Are you simply going to say unsubstantiated claims or will you address them? Misleading? How was I misleading? I provided clear statements and asked you to refute them. So far I am hearing you basically cop out. If these are so easy to refute, refute them! Stop saying that these are stupid things and SHOW why you think they are stupid.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:42 pm

Enigma7457 wrote:What kind of dog is it?

She is a mix between a Lhasa Apso and a poodle named Zoe, thus my name

And, unfortunatley, we lost the game

Rather badly, according to the students (although I understand LAX less than I understand soccer and basketall, which is pretty much... well not at all. ) I pretty much have to watch the other fans when a penatly is called to see if I am to clap or not

Good points about the science...

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Wed May 02, 2007 7:59 pm

Archaeologist.

I assume you will not engage in answering my quesitons. How funny, I seem to recall that was the accusation made against me. And clearly I did answer it. I propose that you will not because you cannot.

I gave you, point by point, postulates to refute. If you can dismiss them so easily, then do so by showing how they are wrong. You have so far refused to answer them and have started another thread (hmm, going off on a tangent? Another accusation made against me, erroneously, I might add)

Take each point and address them. Otherwise it seems as if you are ducking the questions.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Wed May 02, 2007 11:39 pm

And clearly I did answer it.

if you recall and re-read the posts, you did not answer the question but went on a tangent to avoid stating what you think it was called. i gave the answer after repeated attempts.

Otherwise it seems as if you are ducking the questions.

no that would be an asusmption that would be wrong. i said the conversation was over and i haven't even read your posts till this one. i still haven't read any of your posts since i said what i said.

have started another thread

i didn't realize it was against the rules or the law to start another thread when you demand conversation.

now that i look at what you wrote i see why it would be a waste of time to address you any further. you think yo can tell me what my questions are or aren't? how retarded.

your leaps to false conclusions are a waste to respond to as i see you do not know what unregenerated thought is refering to. i really have no desire to talk to you anymore, espcially whenyou think you know what i was asking--and you showed that you don't.

enigma--

You claimed to be leaving the forum due to them

was i insulting a specific person there? i don't think you can determine if i was refering to a particular person at all.

no i said i was leaving the thread, not the forum.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:48 am

If you say they are retarded conclusions, thenthey should be easy to refute. You cannot say things are stupid and not explain why they are stupid. This is not explaining. This is akin to "did not" "didtoo" "oh yeah, well, you're stupid" exchanges.

You only think it was a tangent/tirade becUSE YOU DO NOT UNDRSTAND! Again, if you think they false, PROVE them false.

Idon't care if you start another thread I just think it is amusing that when I ask you to explain why those are FALSE you duck and run.

take each point and tell me what you disagree with.

And yes, you do insult us when you call anyone who says these things are stupid.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:46 am

Allow me:

now that i look at what you wrote i see why it would be a waste of time to address you any further. you think yo can tell me what my questions are or aren't? how retarded.

don't give me [poop], just an answer.

The following was clearly directed at BGoodForGoodSake

if i had a dime for everytime some mental moron, intellectually challenged, braindead person said something like that to me, i could retire.

There was more, but i didn't have the time or patience to search them out. Plus, i got caught in a great game of solitaire and had to finish it. I lost, by the way.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:44 am

archaeologist wrote:
You seem to have a few misunderstandings regarding science. Science is about observations, we watch and observe to see what happens
if i had a dime for everytime some mental moron, intellectually challenged, braindead person said something like that to me, i could retire.

archaeologist wrote:i was going to answer your post but your response showed me that you think more of yourself and science than you should.

i wouldn't talk when you make statements such as the following:

we watch and observe to see what happens
so if your friend has fallen from a boat and is drowning, you would watch and observe, saying he/she didn't have the genetics to make it to safety?

No, while conducting science I watch and observe, if my friend were drowning I would attempt to save his life.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that you attribute a statement one makes regarding science to someone's whole personality?

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 1:24 pm

[quote="BGoodForGoodSake]

so if your friend has fallen from a boat and is drowning, you would watch and observe, saying he/she didn't have the genetics to make it to safety?[/quote]No, while conducting science I watch and observe, if my friend were drowning I would attempt to save his life.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that you attribute a statement one makes regarding science to someone's whole personality?[/quote]

No I am finding that strange as well and again shows how many CHristians unfortunately see all science as evil. I think the word evolution has such emotional baggage to it that immediately people's anger towards the philosophy clouds their understanding of the Process of science. Christians need to feel so confident in God that we have no fear in investigating His world. All truth is God's truth. We need to decide for ourselves instead of deciding what is true based on what atheists use as evidence.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 03, 2007 1:28 pm

Enigma7457 wrote:
Plus, i got caught in a great game of solitaire and had to finish it. I lost, by the way.

godslanguage · Post by **godslanguage** » Thu May 03, 2007 1:40 pm

I also have a problem with Christians who see science as evil, but that is clearly not what archeologist meant. Evolution is clearly not a hard science and whoever believes they observe evolution at work in the laboratory has clearly no clue of what hard-science is. Although I disagree completely with many of archeologists claims, ofcourse, he did not attribute all of science as being evil, that is an overstatement. No christian see's science as evil per se, its only when the practioners/individuals obsume themselves by the method, and apply it to the realms of absolute knowledge, its at this point Christians start to see this line reasoning as evil, not science in general.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu May 03, 2007 1:53 pm

(yes I'm new to the forum so forgive my jumping in - see my intro in the Chit Chat thread)

I am reluctant to speak for Archaeologist, but as I see it, he does not believe nor has he claimed, that science is evil. As I see it, he believes compromise and lack of commitment is evil. Perhaps he sees Christians scientists wanting it both ways; dabbling in the spiritual things and the secular things at the same time. It is difficult for the christian to scientifically justify faith in an invisible, unmeasureable God. It creates a profound delimma, in my opinion.