Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

DDO atheists, we have a problem! LOL

August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
becasue I just watched Appollo 13 last night that line--but with Houston--was in my head when I did this post. So Ive said before that in some ways parts of science are going backwards. like with quatum phsysics and astronomy, with Dark Energy. they cant explain even what a atom look like! LOL. or find an electron? they just have "probability" clouds. and now, huh what do ya know? cant explain 90% of the Universe!
Evolution too is ocming up against the God Wall, I call it. they run out of explaining facts becasue God was behind it, but they wont admit it. I said before the big Ironey thats coming is that science will lead us to God.
Heres some things that show you my point with Evolution. the things Dawkins cant explain either. and he DID say that many times Nature looks like it;s designed by a Creator. The God Wall wont be Climbed by Science, only rammed against and then it gets knocked out like if you run into a brick wall. here's some examples you non-believers might want to look at. please provide answers for these, and show your work! LOL.

Things Evolutionists Hate
The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.

God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by "empirical science" without hesitation.

Noah and The Ark
The Noah's Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don't have to "explain" it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a "great flood") to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth. And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms. The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil record. What we find buried in aqueous sediments are various animal "kinds". They are the same "kinds" we have today, with the exception of extinct kinds.

Unconformities, Paraconformities These are geological terms which are used to notate locations around the earth where the geological strata are "out of order" according to the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, when the most basic of sea-life is found sitting comfortably on top of strata containing "more evolved" organisms.

Living Fossils
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!

Stasis
It is one thing when you can find something in the fossils, say, a dinosaur and say, "see, that was a big, strange creature, and we don't have those anymore! We evolved!". But it is much more difficult when you find something that is said to be millions of years old and hasn't changed a bit. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well, that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where it just doesn't.

Laws of Nature
If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have "laws of nature"? Or for that matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.? What about laws of civilization, such as "do not kill" "do not lie". Why shouldn't we? If evolution is true than none of this would matter, and the world around us would be governed by chaos and accident.

Honest Evolutionists
The "great quotes" archives of the creationists are stuffed with statements made by frustrated evolutionists who fessed up to the weaknesses in the theory. You can bet that some of them wish they had kept their traps shut.


I like that one best. ^^^ God Bless!!
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 9:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
August, this is not your best post, I'm afraid.

Just so we're clear, the people you're calling 'Evolutionists' are actually pretty much the whole of the Developed World, minus the Jehova's Witnesses, Evangelical America, and some rather scary people behind chain-link fences with more wives than husbands.

The Roman Catholic church is theologically fine with evolution. The last Pope, Benedict -- not himself never accused of being progressive -- pronounced that common ancestry was virtually certain. The Anglican church... fine. Most Protestant sects... fine.

So the idea that 'Evolutionism' (also known by its more common name: Biology) is the province of Bible-hating atheists is twaddle.

As for the rest of it... I'm afraid I couldn't call it scientifically literate nonsense, so I'll have to go for the other. In any case, I think it's not informed enough to be worthy of detailed rebuttal.

Fact check time, I think, August.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 11:34:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was going to pick the OP apart, point by point, but Ruv makes a good case for the glaring ignorance to not even be worth a rebuttal. So, I'm inclined to follow suit. I will just mention that the Natural Selection portion is one of the more glaring misunderstandings of evolution that I've come across. Natural selection is the idea that some individuals in a population of organisms fare better than others under whatever natural conditions they happen to be in. As a result, the individuals that thrive are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes, while those that don't thrive are less likely to reproduce. In other words, the genes of the thriving individuals are naturally selected for. This would only be "preservative," in the sense that term is used in the OP, in a stagnant environment with a stagnant gene pool. But mutations and changes to environmental pressures lead to each species, as a population, evolving new traits and developing into new species. The way the OP misconstrues natural selection is comical.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 11:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
Things Evolutionists Hate
The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.

Or perhaps there's a reason why today there's less christians than ever. Could it be that the Bible is, exactly, a bunch of mythology, and people is slowly realizing that despite all the indoctrination they are suffering on their daily basis since they are born?

God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by "empirical science" without hesitation.

Obviously.

Noah and The Ark
The Noah's Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don't have to "explain" it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a "great flood") to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth.

Could it be that the flood myths are copies of one another? After all, most indo-european religions, abrahamic included, are pretty much a copy of ancient babylon religions or a complicated mixture of those religions. Moreover, you are exaggerating about the "30 flood stories", and also missing the fact that ancient people always blamed Gods for natural disasters, and flood-like events are not rare (remember 2004 india's tsunami, what would ancient people think of that tragedy?). Moreover, other fancy elements as dragons, are more present than the flood myth worldwide, so by your logic, dragons must have existed, right?

And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?

On the contrary, there's no geological evidence of any such flood. This is why it is rejected by scientists. It really is a pity that the Bible did not at least base its fancy claims on real events. It simply invented them out of nothing. Oh, sorry, it did not actually "invent" them, it copied them from other books that invented them.

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

Creatures do not select healthy or similar creatures to themselves. Creatures, like humans, select whatever they turn them on, which can be a big d*ck, a cool bad boy personality, a kind and caring personality or they simply select the mate that gives them more presents. It's actualy pretty simple.

However, natural selection is not only about "how creatures selected each other", but "how the environment selects creatures". Cold will kill faster those animals that lack fur, and thus the species becomes more furry with time; heat will kill faster those animals that lack cooling systems, and thus the species will improve its sweat systems, or its water play habits; lions will kill most easily gaceles that are slow, and thus the species will become faster in time; plants that are tiny will die on shadowy forests, so the species will eventualy be taller to reach the sun. Etc.

As you can see, natural selection will always promote change, as the environment is everchanging, and therefore it demands species to change too, or become extinct. There's probably not even one example of natural selection stoping evolution. On the contrary, if evolution stops, it will be because natural selection has stopped too.

The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms.

Oh but it does show exactly that...

The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil record. What we find buried in aqueous sediments are various animal "kinds". They are the same "kinds" we have today, with the exception of extinct kinds.

You shouldn't hide behind a concept you can not even define. This "kind" concept which is laughable by any scientific standards.

Unconformities, Paraconformities These are geological terms which are used to notate locations around the earth where the geological strata are "out of order" according to the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, when the most basic of sea-life is found sitting comfortably on top of strata containing "more evolved" organisms.

Unconformities and paraconformities are evidences of exposure to geological agents that caused the erosion of the environment in the age that stratum was formed. Therefore it is already expected that there will be missing strata and fossils when you jump from an stratum to another. However, once you date those strata, the result is that they always match evolutionary expectations. Always.

Also, it is nice that you mention unconformities and paraconformities, as both can be regarded as evidences of the Earth being millions of years old, which would clash with the biblical insinuation that the Earth is only thousands of years old.

Living Fossils
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!

For example?

Stasis
It is one thing when you can find something in the fossils, say, a dinosaur and say, "see, that was a big, strange creature, and we don't have those anymore! We evolved!". But it is much more difficult when you find something that is said to be millions of years old and hasn't changed a bit. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well, that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where it just doesn't.

As I have said, if natural selection stops, evolution will stop too. However, how do you know cockroaches of horseshoe crabs did not change? And, why do you think that in order to evolve, a species must go extinct?

Laws of Nature
If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have "laws of nature"? Or for that matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.?

Why not?

What about laws of civilization, such as "do not kill" "do not lie". Why shouldn't we? If evolution is true than none of this would matter,

Evolution preserves anything that is useful to survive. Are you suggesting that morality is not useful? Would you, or me, be alive if we lived in an inmoral world?

and the world around us would be governed by chaos and accident.

The world is governed by chaos and accident, if it were not that way, humans would not put so much effort in making an organized, very ordered society. This is done precisely because we accept the world is chaotic and we find difficulties living on it.

Btw, it would be nice if you guys actually cared to understand evolution. As a biology teacher, I can tell most of your questions reveal an important lack of understanding on the issue. Meaning, you need to do your homework before attempting to criticize such a widely accepted theory, if you do not want to look like an imbecil, of course.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 1:30:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 11:52:38 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
Things Evolutionists Hate
The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.

Or perhaps there's a reason why today there's less christians than ever. Could it be that the Bible is, exactly, a bunch of mythology, and people is slowly realizing that despite all the indoctrination they are suffering on their daily basis since they are born?

God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by "empirical science" without hesitation.

Obviously.

Noah and The Ark
The Noah's Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don't have to "explain" it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a "great flood") to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth.

Could it be that the flood myths are copies of one another? After all, most indo-european religions, abrahamic included, are pretty much a copy of ancient babylon religions or a complicated mixture of those religions. Moreover, you are exaggerating about the "30 flood stories", and also missing the fact that ancient people always blamed Gods for natural disasters, and flood-like events are not rare (remember 2004 india's tsunami, what would ancient people think of that tragedy?). Moreover, other fancy elements as dragons, are more present than the flood myth worldwide, so by your logic, dragons must have existed, right?

And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?

On the contrary, there's no geological evidence of any such flood. This is why it is rejected by scientists. It really is a pity that the Bible did not at least base its fancy claims on real events. It simply invented them out of nothing. Oh, sorry, it did not actually "invent" them, it copied them from other books that invented them.

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

Creatures do not select healthy or similar creatures to themselves. Creatures, like humans, select whatever they turn them on, which can be a big d*ck, a cool bad boy personality, a kind and caring personality or they simply select the mate that gives them more presents. It's actualy pretty simple.

However, natural selection is not only about "how creatures selected each other", but "how the environment selects creatures". Cold will kill faster those animals that lack fur, and thus the species becomes more furry with time; heat will kill faster those animals that lack cooling systems, and thus the species will improve its sweat systems, or its water play habits; lions will kill most easily gaceles that are slow, and thus the species will become faster in time; plants that are tiny will die on shadowy forests, so the species will eventualy be taller to reach the sun. Etc.

As you can see, natural selection will always promote change, as the environment is everchanging, and therefore it demands species to change too, or become extinct. There's probably not even one example of natural selection stoping evolution. On the contrary, if evolution stops, it will be because natural selection has stopped too.

The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms.

Oh but it does show exactly that...

The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil re

Unconformities and paraconformities are evidences of exposure to geological agents that caused the erosion of the environment in the age that stratum was formed. Therefore it is already expected that there will be missing strata and fossils when you jump from an stratum to another. However, once you date those strata, the result is that they always match evolutionary expectations. Always.

Also, it is nice that you mention unconformities and paraconformities, as both can be regarded as evidences of the Earth being millions of years old, which would clash with the biblical insinuation that the Earth is only thousands of years old.

Living Fossils
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!

For example?

Stasis

and the world around us would be governed by chaos and accident.

The world is governed by chaos and accident, if it were not that way, humans would not put so much effort in making an organized, very ordered society. This is done precisely because we accept the world is chaotic and we find difficulties living on it.

Btw, it would be nice if you guys actually cared to understand evolution. As a biology teacher, I can tell most of your questions reveal an important lack of understanding on the issue. Meaning, you need to do your homework before attempting to criticize such a widely accepted theory, if you do not want to look like an imbecil.

Imbecile? yeah, you sound like a great teacher, pal. Bet your kids love ya. LOL. I probably understand as much about Evolution as you do. Read the wiki article on Theistic Evolution. You guys think those gentic mutations are purely random. at first. and then the ones that prove advantageous get selected to by passed on to the next generations, till they dominate and finally prevail. all well and good. except for th random part. how do the mutations "know" where to appear? like the eye? started with a light-sensitive skin patch? LOL..well, why exactly on the top of the face? why not on our feet? or butt? to believe that such design is out of pure chance is a bigger leap of Faith in believing in God by far. Evolution is clearly Teleological. Look that word up. I accept all the machinations of it but just feel, as do many, that it is God-Driven. Call it ID or TE. I dont care as long as you understand this. You guys like to fit the theories to evade facts. Like your punctuated equilibrium. LOL. a term invented when the timeline of Evolution didnt fit with your ideas. and you CANNOT disprove that God or whatever you want to call the Divine Creator is not the brains behind the outfit.
There is also evidence of a Mass flood. Geological. Good thing you dont teach Geology, huh? Ill maybe post a link on that for you.
You also cannot debunk irreducible complexity. Have you ever read Mike Behe's books? you should. Also check out the 2nd Law of thermodynamics sometime and see how it flies with random chance driven progress and increase of efficiency in a closed system. if a dynamic in a system is NOT driven by an efficient design the entropy increases it never decreases. and these are only a couple of your problems with atheistic evolution. Ill tell you some more late
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 2:51:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Parroting all of the usual ID talking points isn't doing a whole lot for your credibility on the subject, August.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 3:20:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 11:52:38 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
Things Evolutionists Hate
The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.

Or perhaps there's a reason why today there's less christians than ever. Could it be that the Bible is, exactly, a bunch of mythology, and people is slowly realizing that despite all the indoctrination they are suffering on their daily basis since they are born?

God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by "empirical science" without hesitation.

Obviously.

Noah and The Ark
The Noah's Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don't have to "explain" it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a "great flood") to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth.

Could it be that the flood myths are copies of one another? After all, most indo-european religions, abrahamic included, are pretty much a copy of ancient babylon religions or a complicated mixture of those religions. Moreover, you are exaggerating about the "30 flood stories", and also missing the fact that ancient people always blamed Gods for natural disasters, and flood-like events are not rare (remember 2004 india's tsunami, what would ancient people think of that tragedy?). Moreover, other fancy elements as dragons, are more present than the flood myth worldwide, so by your logic, dragons must have existed, right?

And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?

On the contrary, there's no geological evidence of any such flood. This is why it is rejected by scientists. It really is a pity that the Bible did not at least base its fancy claims on real events. It simply invented them out of nothing. Oh, sorry, it did not actually "invent" them, it copied them from other books that invented them.

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

Creatures do not select healthy or similar creatures to themselves. Creatures, like humans, select whatever they turn them on, which can be a big d*ck, a cool bad boy personality, a kind and caring personality or they simply select the mate that gives them more presents. It's actualy pretty simple.

However, natural selection is not only about "how creatures selected each other", but "how the environment selects creatures". Cold will kill faster those animals that lack fur, and thus the species becomes more furry with time; heat will kill faster those animals that lack cooling systems, and thus the species will improve its sweat systems, or its water play habits; lions will kill most easily gaceles that are slow, and thus the species will become faster in time; plants that are tiny will die on shadowy forests, so the species will eventualy be taller to reach the sun. Etc.

As you can see, natural selection will always promote change, as the environment is everchanging, and therefore it demands species to change too, or become extinct. There's probably not even one example of natural selection stoping evolution. On the contrary, if evolution stops, it will be because natural selection has stopped too.

The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms.

Oh but it does show exactly that...

The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil record. What we find buried in aqueous sediments are various animal "kinds". They are the same "kinds" we have today, with the exception of extinct kinds.

jump from an stratum to another. However, once you date those strata, the result is that they always match evolutionary expectations. Always.

Also, it is nice that you mention unconformities and paraconformities, as both can be regarded as evidences of the Earth being millions of years old, which would clash with the biblical insinuation that the Earth is only thousands of years old.

Living Fossils
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!

For example?

Stasis
It is one thing when you can find something in the fossils, say, a dinosaur and say, "see, that was a big, strange creature, and we don't have those anymore! We evolved!". But it is much more difficult when you find something that is said to be millions of years old and hasn't changed a bit. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well, that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where it just doesn't.

As I have said, if natural selection stops, evolution will stop too. However, how do you know cockroaches of horseshoe crabs did not change? And, why do you think that in order to evolve, a species must go extinct?

Laws of Nature
If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have "laws of nature"? Or for that matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.?

Why not?

What about laws of civilization, such as "do not kill" "do not lie". Why shouldn't we? If evolution is true than none of this would matter,

Btw, it would be nice if you guys actually cared to understand evolution. As a biology teacher, I can tell most of your questions reveal an important lack of understanding on the issue. Meaning, you need to do your homework before attempting to criticize such a widely accepted theory, if you do not want to look like an imbecil...

yeah Im sure glad like I said you dont teach Geology! here, Mr. "teacher" is that link I told you about. one of them anyway, theres a bunch! you remind me of a story in the bible, in the Gospel of John I think when Jesus had to explain to Nicodemus about being Born Again. Nicodemus was supposedly a teacher, like you supposedly are. and so JC goes......."How can you call yourself a teacher and not know these things?" do ya need me to post that quote for you too? let me know. God bless.

http://www.earthage.org...
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:34:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 1:30:42 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
Imbecile? yeah, you sound like a great teacher, pal

You don't expect me to treat you like one of my students, right?

Bet your kids love ya.

Not sure about that...

LOL. I probably understand as much about Evolution as you do. Read the wiki article on Theistic Evolution. You guys think those gentic mutations are purely random. at first. and then the ones that prove advantageous get selected to by passed on to the next generations, till they dominate and finally prevail. all well and good. except for th random part. how do the mutations "know" where to appear?

Again, you must do your homework or you will keep embarrassing yourself. You said: mutations are purely random. at first. and then the ones that prove advantageous get selected to by passed on to the next generations, till they dominate and finally prevail.

This alone should be enough for you to understand why your question of "how do mutations know where to appear" makes no sense at all.

like the eye? started with a light-sensitive skin patch? LOL..well, why exactly on the top of the face? why not on our feet? or butt? to believe that such design is out of pure chance is a bigger leap of Faith in believing in God by far. Evolution is clearly Teleological.

Evolution can not be teleological without accepting God is an imbecil (I like the word imbecil, pardon me). 99% of species that ever existed are extinct, meaning God is as good at designing life as a chimpanzee.

Look that word up. I accept all the machinations of it but just feel, as do many, that it is God-Driven. Call it ID or TE. I dont care as long as you understand this. You guys like to fit the theories to evade facts. Like your punctuated equilibrium. LOL. a term invented when the timeline of Evolution didnt fit with your ideas. and you CANNOT disprove that God or whatever you want to call the Divine Creator is not the brains behind the outfit.

You do understand that the so called "quick evolution" of punctuated equilibrium, still happened on a timeline of 20 million years, right? So not really quick at all. Btw, punctuated equilibrium is not really given much credit today, now that we know that the so called "Cambrian explosion" is not as impressive as we thought. When Elredge and Gould initialy researched the Cambrian strata, they counted +11 new philums appearing, while now we know only 5 of those can be considered real philums. For a lot of geologists, there's no "explosion" whatsoever, and for most biologists, the pace of evolution during the Cambrian is not the most impressive we have seen (mutations on regulatory genes in controlled populations of drosophila and other lab species, show even faster evolution rates).

There is also evidence of a Mass flood. Geological. Good thing you dont teach Geology, huh? Ill maybe post a link on that for you.

Actually I do teach geology too. In my country, geology and biology are the same subject until the last high-school year :) And no, no evidence of the flood.

You also cannot debunk irreducible complexity. Have you ever read Mike Behe's books?

Then it will probably be easy for you to give me just one example of irreducible complexity. But I can already tell you, you will embarrass yourself (again) if you mention human eye or flagellum.

you should. Also check out the 2nd Law of thermodynamics sometime and see how it flies with random chance driven progress and increase of efficiency in a closed system. if a dynamic in a system is NOT driven by an efficient design the entropy increases it never decreases. and these are only a couple of your problems with atheistic evolution. Ill tell you some more late

Breaking news: Earth is not a closed system.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 4:17:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
becasue I just watched Appollo 13 last night

And you started a thread on how prayer saved the mission.

Then you abandoned that thread and left direct questions unanswered.

RE: Missing Links.

Creationist: Show a string of ascending numbers between 0 and 1.

Evolutionist: .118 .263 .512 .756 .825 .916
Creationist: HA! HA! Look at all the numbers missing! What a bunch of BS!

Evolutionist:.118 .196 .263 .483 .512 .654 .756 .794 .825 .893 .916
Creationist: HA! HA! Look at all the numbers missing! What a bunch of BS!
Think
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 4:21:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

Until the environment changes, then adaptations lead to evolutionary survival.

Now, if you want to argue that the environment doesn't change...
Think
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:27:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

If 'natural selection' only meant 'choosing a mate' then the above would almost (but note quite) make sense, but there are many other factors involved in 'natural selection'.

For example predators would 'naturally select' prey that are amongst the slowest and weakest of their prey. The quick have more offspring than the slow (because its hard to breed after you've been eaten), so the average prey animal gets faster naturally.

In other words it is not potential mates that do the selection in natural selection (although that does play a part) - the selectors are such things as predators, members of other species that compete for some scarce resource and diseases and parasites.

Those selectors do encourage constant evolutionary change - even when the environment is stable.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:46:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
becasue I just watched Appollo 13 last night that line--but with Houston--was in my head when I did this post. So Ive said before that in some ways parts of science are going backwards. like with quatum phsysics and astronomy, with Dark Energy. they cant explain even what a atom look like! LOL. or find an electron? they just have "probability" clouds. and now, huh what do ya know? cant explain 90% of the Universe!
Evolution too is ocming up against the God Wall, I call it. they run out of explaining facts becasue God was behind it, but they wont admit it. I said before the big Ironey thats coming is that science will lead us to God.
Heres some things that show you my point with Evolution. the things Dawkins cant explain either. and he DID say that many times Nature looks like it;s designed by a Creator. The God Wall wont be Climbed by Science, only rammed against and then it gets knocked out like if you run into a brick wall. here's some examples you non-believers might want to look at. please provide answers for these, and show your work! LOL.

Things Evolutionists Hate
The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.

God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by "empirical science" without hesitation.

Noah and The Ark
The Noah's Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don't have to "explain" it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a "great flood") to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth. And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms. The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil record. What we find buried in aqueous sediments are various animal "kinds". They are the same "kinds" we have today, with the exception of extinct kinds.

Unconformities, Paraconformities These are geological terms which are used to notate locations around the earth where the geological strata are "out of order" according to the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, when the most basic of sea-life is found sitting comfortably on top of strata containing "more evolved" organisms.

Living Fossils
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!

Stasis
It is one thing when you can find something in the fossils, say, a dinosaur and say, "see, that was a big, strange creature, and we don't have those anymore! We evolved!". But it is much more difficult when you find something that is said to be millions of years old and hasn't changed a bit. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well, that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where it just doesn't.

Laws of Nature
If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have "laws of nature"? Or for that matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.? What about laws of civilization, such as "do not kill" "do not lie". Why shouldn't we? If evolution is true than none of this would matter, and the world around us would be governed by chaos and accident.

Honest Evolutionists
The "great quotes" archives of the creationists are stuffed with statements made by frustrated evolutionists who fessed up to the weaknesses in the theory. You can bet that some of them wish they had kept their traps shut.


I like that one best. ^^^ God Bless!!

Your God Wall sounds a lot like the God of the gaps. How does God explain things any better than science does?
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 8:34:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 3:26:56 AM, dee-em wrote:
Once again, why oh why is this drivel in the Science forum?

Drivel? Hardly. you should know there are a slew pf problems that you atheist evolution guys cant answer. or solve. here's something from a PhD article on that...........

The design of living things has always been a huge problem for evolutionists. Even the simplest single-cell organism is unimaginably complex, with scores of highly sophisticated parts, all performing important functions and all mutually interdependent. The laws of statistics have convinced all who have bothered to calculate the odds that even something as basic as a protein molecule could never arise by chance, consisting as it does of a chain of hundreds of precisely arranged amino acids.

And such a protein molecule is trivial compared to any of the working parts of a cell. When it is recognized that all of these parts must be present and functioning at the start, it must be admitted that life is impossible without an Intelligent Designer. Actually, every living thing gives such strong evidence for design that only willfully ignoring the data (2 Peter 3:5) could lead one to assign such intricacy to chance and natural selection. Every living thing, from simple bacteria to people, possesses the marvelous DNA code, which contains a library full of precise information, and without which life is impossible.

Another fatal problem for evolution"which, if it occurred at all, occurred in the long-ago past"lies in the nature of the fossil record, which is the only physical record we have of life in the past. As is now being admitted by my evolutionary colleagues, the fossil record gives no clue that any basic type of animal has ever changed into another basic type of animal, for no undisputed chain of in-between forms has ever been discovered.

Each basic type is distinct in the modern world and in the fossil record, although there is much variation within these basic types. While gradual "Darwinian" evolution has always predicted that transitional forms would one day be found, the current rage in evolutionary circles is the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium""proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly and left no fossils. But where is the evidence that they evolved at all?
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 1:59:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 8:34:18 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:26:56 AM, dee-em wrote:
Once again, why oh why is this drivel in the Science forum?

Drivel? Hardly. you should know there are a slew of problems that you atheist evolution guys cant answer. or solve. here's something from a PhD article on that...........

In the interests of accuracy, transparency and full disclosure, this is not a peer-reviewed biological paper from a PhD in Biology or a related discipline, but an unreviewed paper [http://creationrevolution.com...] by Dr John Morris [http://www.icr.org...], a geological engineer, and President of the Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org...]. (For those interested, a geological engineer generally supports civil engineers in designing routes and foundations for highways, dams, quarries and pipelines.)

Describing itself as the research wing of the Christian Heritage College (now the San Diego Christian College [http://sdcc.edu...], a private Evangelical college.) and founded by Morris' father, Henry M Morris, with an annual income of only $7M [http://www.charitynavigator.org...] -- most of it in gifts and grants, the ICR is hardly a national intellectual powerhouse.

Moreover, I could not find a single, peer-reviewed paper from Dr Morris in any respected biological journal, though his Institute has numerous (presumably unreviewed) papers on young earth creationism and the Biblical flood -- not to mention countless promotional tracts on Christianty, Jesus, Sin, Satan and other topics of common Evangelical concern. [http://www.icr.org...]

A rockjockey professionally qualified to help public servants lay rail-track, employed nepotistically by a privately-funded, ideologically-motivated institution living on charitable gifts and pumping out religious tracts, commenting without review outside his own field of expertise: is this the best 'scientist' Creationism can field? I'm not seeing the field of Biology quaking.

When I wrote that your original Post wasn't your best post, August, I was thinking that it ranked among your worst.

However, with the post quoted above -- its lack of honesty, research, accountability or transparency -- I think you've now displaced it.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:08:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:59:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/12/2015 8:34:18 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/12/2015 3:26:56 AM, dee-em wrote:
Once again, why oh why is this drivel in the Science forum?

Drivel? Hardly. you should know there are a slew of problems that you atheist evolution guys cant answer. or solve. here's something from a PhD article on that...........

In the interests of accuracy, transparency and full disclosure, this is not a peer-reviewed biological paper from a PhD in Biology or a related discipline, but an unreviewed paper [http://creationrevolution.com...] by Dr John Morris [http://www.icr.org...], a geological engineer, and President of the Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org...]. (For those interested, a geological engineer generally supports civil engineers in designing routes and foundations for highways, dams, quarries and pipelines.)

Describing itself as the research wing of the Christian Heritage College (now the San Diego Christian College [http://sdcc.edu...], a private Evangelical college.) and founded by Morris' father, Henry M Morris, with an annual income of only $7M [http://www.charitynavigator.org...] -- most of it in gifts and grants, the ICR is hardly a national intellectual powerhouse.

Moreover, I could not find a single, peer-reviewed paper from Dr Morris in any respected biological journal, though his Institute has numerous (presumably unreviewed) papers on young earth creationism and the Biblical flood -- not to mention countless promotional tracts on Christianty, Jesus, Sin, Satan and other topics of common Evangelical concern. [http://www.icr.org...]

A rockjockey professionally qualified to help public servants lay rail-track, employed nepotistically by a privately-funded, ideologically-motivated institution living on charitable gifts and pumping out religious tracts, commenting without review outside his own field of expertise: is this the best 'scientist' Creationism can field? I'm not seeing the field of Biology quaking.

When I wrote that your original Post wasn't your best post, August, I was thinking that it ranked among your worst.

However, with the post quoted above -- its lack of honesty, research, accountability or transparency -- I think you've now displaced it.

He IS a PhD Mr. Draba,I got the link from here............http://www.icr.org...

and you criticize him unfairly. Rock jockey? and where he is from? privately-funded? Ideologically motivated? so what? you could say that about 80% of professional scientists, sir. but since you dont agree you are showing some bias I think and being overly harsh on him. A PhD Geologist IS in the Earth Science field, as is Biology and Evolution, thus his ideas are as qualified as anybody's on this topic. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:34:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:08:38 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:59:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
A rockjockey professionally qualified to help public servants lay rail-track, employed nepotistically by a privately-funded, ideologically-motivated institution living on charitable gifts and pumping out religious tracts, commenting without review outside his own field of expertise: is this the best 'scientist' Creationism can field? I'm not seeing the field of Biology quaking.

When I wrote that your original Post wasn't your best post, August, I was thinking that it ranked among your worst.

However, with the post quoted above -- its lack of honesty, research, accountability or transparency -- I think you've now displaced it.

He IS a PhD Mr. Draba,I got the link from here............http://www.icr.org...

Coincidentally it's actually, Dr. Draba, August, since I'm a PhD too. And from that perspective I feel confident in saying that a PhD in geological engineering is not a PhD in geology, paleontology, biology or... pretty much anything that might have the expertise to critique biology's account of species change.

Dr Morris is guy trained to pronounce on whether dam walls will hold in earthquakes. He's not able to critique leading results in biology for the same reason I'm not: he lacks sufficiently detailed knowledge of context, methods, evidence and so on -- except I admit that, while he doesn't.

And further, such critique would be meaningless anyway until it's peer-reviewed by people actually researching and publishing in the field. PhDs aren't that hard to get, and any PhD can publish anything. An idea is only scientifically legitimate if fellow researchers actually critique it.

and you criticize him unfairly. Rock jockey? and where he is from? privately-funded? Ideologically motivated? so what?

Supposedly 'researching' Creationism, the ICR publishes tracts on religion, but apparently has NO publications in peer-reviewed journals on biology -- or any other peer-reviewed scientific journal that I could find.

How is THAT supposed to have anything to do with science?

From what I've seen so far, it's impossible to conclude that the ICR is a scientific research organisation, or that Dr Morris is doing any work in scientific research at all.

However, a reasonable alternative conclusion, August, is that this is a 40 year-old family-owned Evangelical communications organisation, getting its funding from ideological religious interests, and keeping them mollified by publishing religious tracts and the occasional antiscientific, antievolutionary polemic, while claiming an intellectual grandeur and authority that doesn't withstand even 30 minutes of casual scrutiny by anyone with any real experience in scientific research, like your humble correspondent.

I realise you may not have known that yourself, so maybe you were posting in good faith, and perhaps I've been too hard on you. If so, my apologies! But I'm appalled by the dishonesty in what I discovered, so I'm reacting to that.

But this is why I keep saying in various threads (not necessarily to you): if you want to talk about science critiquing science, please cite a scientific paper from a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Anything you get off a blogsite is dubious, no matter the grand names of the institutions, and the supposed qualifications of its authors.

Sadly, I suspect that Morris has inherited this particular schtick from his Dad -- an edifice of no relevance to the scientific community at all -- and is keeping it running for who knows what reason? His own misplaced zeal, or because seven mill a year turnover, book-sales, invited talks to religious groups, and occasional trips to the Holy Land make for a pretty cushy life?

I wish I could say that was a one-off, August, but unfortunately, for decades American Evangelicals have been cranking out fake-scientific institutions like sausages -- because apparently, fellow adherents will fund them to do that. :p
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:39:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:34:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:08:38 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:59:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
A rockjockey professionally qualified to help public servants lay rail-track, employed nepotistically by a privately-funded, ideologically-motivated institution living on charitable gifts and pumping out religious tracts, commenting without review outside his own field of expertise: is this the best 'scientist' Creationism can field? I'm not seeing the field of Biology quaking.

When I wrote that your original Post wasn't your best post, August, I was thinking that it ranked among your worst.

However, with the post quoted above -- its lack of honesty, research, accountability or transparency -- I think you've now displaced it.

He IS a PhD Mr. Draba,I got the link from here............http://www.icr.org...

Coincidentally it's actually, Dr. Draba, August, since I'm a PhD too. And from that perspective I feel confident in saying that a PhD in geological engineering is not a PhD in geology, paleontology, biology or... pretty much anything that might have the expertise to critique biology's account of species change.

Dr Morris is guy trained to pronounce on whether dam walls will hold in earthquakes. He's not able to critique leading results in biology for the same reason I'm not: he lacks sufficiently detailed knowledge of context, methods, evidence and so on -- except I admit that, while he doesn't.

And further, such critique would be meaningless anyway until it's peer-reviewed by people actually researching and publishing in the field. PhDs aren't that hard to get, and any PhD can publish anything. An idea is only scientifically legitimate if fellow researchers actually critique it.

and you criticize him unfairly. Rock jockey? and where he is from? privately-funded? Ideologically motivated? so what?

Supposedly 'researching' Creationism, the ICR publishes tracts on religion, but apparently has NO publications in peer-reviewed journals on biology -- or any other peer-reviewed scientific journal that I could find.

How is THAT supposed to have anything to do with science?

From what I've seen so far, it's impossible to conclude that the ICR is a scientific research organisation, or that Dr Morris is doing any work in scientific research at all.

However, a reasonable alternative conclusion, August, is that this is a 40 year-old family-owned Evangelical communications organisation, getting its funding from ideological religious interests, and keeping them mollified by publishing religious tracts and the occasional antiscientific, antievolutionary polemic, while claiming an intellectual grandeur and authority that doesn't withstand even 30 minutes of casual scrutiny by anyone with any real experience in scientific research, like your humble correspondent.

I realise you may not have known that yourself, so maybe you were posting in good faith, and perhaps I've been too hard on you. If so, my apologies! But I'm appalled by the dishonesty in what I discovered, so I'm reacting to that.

But this is why I keep saying in various threads (not necessarily to you): if you want to talk about science critiquing science, please cite a scientific paper from a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Anything you get off a blogsite is dubious, no matter the grand names of the institutions, and the supposed qualifications of its authors.

Sadly, I suspect that Morris has inherited this particular schtick from his Dad -- an edifice of no relevance to the scientific community at all -- and is keeping it running for who knows what reason? His own misplaced zeal, or because seven mill a year turnover, book-sales, invited talks to religious groups, and occasional trips to the Holy Land make for a pretty cushy life?

I wish I could say that was a one-off, August, but unfortunately, for decades American Evangelicals have been cranking out fake-scientific institutions like sausages -- because apparently, fellow adherents will fund them to do that. :p

Yeah, doc, your right I didnt know about his agency being Evangelically funded. Ill see if I can dig up some more secular sources to show some of the support out there for Theological Evolution. Thanks for the lesson, and God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:33:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:39:25 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:34:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
From what I've seen so far, it's impossible to conclude that the ICR is a scientific research organisation, or that Dr Morris is doing any work in scientific research at all.

However, a reasonable alternative conclusion, August, is that this is a 40 year-old family-owned Evangelical communications organisation, getting its funding from ideological religious interests, and keeping them mollified by publishing religious tracts and the occasional antiscientific, antievolutionary polemic, while claiming an intellectual grandeur and authority that doesn't withstand even 30 minutes of casual scrutiny by anyone with any real experience in scientific research, like your humble correspondent.

I realise you may not have known that yourself, so maybe you were posting in good faith, and perhaps I've been too hard on you. If so, my apologies! But I'm appalled by the dishonesty in what I discovered, so I'm reacting to that.

But this is why I keep saying in various threads (not necessarily to you): if you want to talk about science critiquing science, please cite a scientific paper from a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Anything you get off a blogsite is dubious, no matter the grand names of the institutions, and the supposed qualifications of its authors.

Sadly, I suspect that Morris has inherited this particular schtick from his Dad -- an edifice of no relevance to the scientific community at all -- and is keeping it running for who knows what reason? His own misplaced zeal, or because seven mill a year turnover, book-sales, invited talks to religious groups, and occasional trips to the Holy Land make for a pretty cushy life?

I wish I could say that was a one-off, August, but unfortunately, for decades American Evangelicals have been cranking out fake-scientific institutions like sausages -- because apparently, fellow adherents will fund them to do that. :p

Yeah, doc, your right I didnt know about his agency being Evangelically funded. Ill see if I can dig up some more secular sources to show some of the support out there for Theological Evolution. Thanks for the lesson, and God Bless.

You're welcome, August, always. And please don't take the 'Doc' seriously. It has no bearing on anything in DDO, except attribution of where my perspectives come from.

But if I may say, I'm concerned that your approach to evolution may be a bit self-defeating. This is not criticism, since you're free to investigate however you want. But it is (I hope) friendly advice. Just to sketch my concerns...

1) Atheism is way older than evolution. You can find atheists among ancient Greek philosophers, and they had no notion of species mutating into other species. So atheists have never needed evolution to be atheists.

2) Evolution wasn't created by atheists. Chucky Darwin was actually Unitarian before his trip to the Galapagos islands. He eventually became agnostic after a long and tormented struggle of faith vs evidence. But there have been plenty of Christians contributing valuably toward evolutionary theory too. So while evolution may have helped to create more atheists, and my be used by atheists to attack various theologies, atheists themselves didn't concoct evolution, nor was evolution developed for that purpose.

3) Darwinian evolution isn't the first evolution idea. There were multiple other ideas about evolution, perhaps the most famous of which is Lamarckian evolution. I mention this to show that evolution is the product of a centuries-long conversation that really began in earnest in the 1600s -- more than two centuries before Darwin. (I'd be happy to offer a summary of what that conversation was about, if you're interested, and what the various views were.)

4) Creationists have made valued contributions to biology and even evolution in the past. For my money, the best Creationist contribution was by devout Lutheran Georges Cuvier, often called the Father of Paleontology. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] He died before Darwin, but was a great analyst, an astute critic of Lamarckian evolution, and inadvertantly gave paleolontology many of the insights needed to eventually support biology in general, and Darwinian evolution in particular.

5) As with every scientific field, there are legitimate scientific criticisms about biology, but evolution isn't one of them. After a century and a half of diligent exploration, evolution is now accepted scientifically as beyond reasonable doubt. It's mainly the pace of evolution and the possibility of abiogenesis that are still contentious. If you want to know how evolution can be beyond reasonable doubt when we've never actually observed the common ancestor of everything, please poke me and I'll talk you through it. However, if you're looking for a scientifically-legitimate biological alternative to evolution, there isn't one. For the tens of thousands of research biologists of every faith and culture all over the world, the study of biology now is the study of evolutionary products.

6) Plenty of Christian thought believes evolution compatible with theology. And by plenty, I really mean pretty much all Christian thought in the developed world, except the Evangelicals and other literalists like the Jehova's Witnesses. That doesn't mean science accepts theology (it ignores theology); it means modern Christian theology largely accepts biological science. And specifically: the RC Church accepts it as being 'almost certain', the Anglicans have issued a formal apology to Darwin... like that. It's mainly the oddity that is US Evangelicalism that may give one a warped view of the state of things.

I'm happy to explain, defend, or provide links on any of the above if that's useful to you, August. I'll even offer some scientifically legitimate criticisms of biology, with links to papers containing those criticisms if you like. But I don't believe you'll find the kind of 'smoking gun' challenge to evolution that you're looking for in the scientific literature -- not because of some atheist conspiracy, but because really, all the substantive scientific qualms were ironed out over forty years ago, and now they're just exploring residual questions like pace, mechanisms, taxa, anatomy and biogenesis.

I hope that may be useful. Thank you for indulging and overlooking my brief explosion of professional outrage earlier. :)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:45:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:34:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:08:38 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:59:22 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
A rockjockey professionally qualified to help public servants lay rail-track, employed nepotistically by a privately-funded, ideologically-motivated institution living on charitable gifts and pumping out religious tracts, commenting without review outside his own field of expertise: is this the best 'scientist' Creationism can field? I'm not seeing the field of Biology quaking.

When I wrote that your original Post wasn't your best post, August, I was thinking that it ranked among your worst.

However, with the post quoted above -- its lack of honesty, research, accountability or transparency -- I think you've now displaced it.

He IS a PhD Mr. Draba,I got the link from here............http://www.icr.org...

Coincidentally it's actually, Dr. Draba, August, since I'm a PhD too. And from that perspective I feel confident in saying that a PhD in geological engineering is not a PhD in geology, paleontology, biology or... pretty much anything that might have the expertise to critique biology's account of species change.

Dr Morris is guy trained to pronounce on whether dam walls will hold in earthquakes. He's not able to critique leading results in biology for the same reason I'm not: he lacks sufficiently detailed knowledge of context, methods, evidence and so on -- except I admit that, while he doesn't.

And further, such critique would be meaningless anyway until it's peer-reviewed by people actually researching and publishing in the field. PhDs aren't that hard to get, and any PhD can publish anything. An idea is only scientifically legitimate if fellow researchers actually critique it.

and you criticize him unfairly. Rock jockey? and where he is from? privately-funded? Ideologically motivated? so what?

Supposedly 'researching' Creationism, the ICR publishes tracts on religion, but apparently has NO publications in peer-reviewed journals on biology -- or any other peer-reviewed scientific journal that I could find.

How is THAT supposed to have anything to do with science?

From what I've seen so far, it's impossible to conclude that the ICR is a scientific research organisation, or that Dr Morris is doing any work in scientific research at all.

However, a reasonable alternative conclusion, August, is that this is a 40 year-old family-owned Evangelical communications organisation, getting its funding from ideological religious interests, and keeping them mollified by publishing religious tracts and the occasional antiscientific, antievolutionary polemic, while claiming an intellectual grandeur and authority that doesn't withstand even 30 minutes of casual scrutiny by anyone with any real experience in scientific research, like your humble correspondent.

I realise you may not have known that yourself, so maybe you were posting in good faith, and perhaps I've been too hard on you. If so, my apologies! But I'm appalled by the dishonesty in what I discovered, so I'm reacting to that.

But this is why I keep saying in various threads (not necessarily to you): if you want to talk about science critiquing science, please cite a scientific paper from a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Anything you get off a blogsite is dubious, no matter the grand names of the institutions, and the supposed qualifications of its authors.

Sadly, I suspect that Morris has inherited this particular schtick from his Dad -- an edifice of no relevance to the scientific community at all -- and is keeping it running for who knows what reason? His own misplaced zeal, or because seven mill a year turnover, book-sales, invited talks to religious groups, and occasional trips to the Holy Land make for a pretty cushy life?

I wish I could say that was a one-off, August, but unfortunately, for decades American Evangelicals have been cranking out fake-scientific institutions like sausages -- because apparently, fellow adherents will fund them to do that. :p

I will add to this, by also citing these "Tenets" of ICR:

http://www.icr.org...

No Scientist in ANY field at any time who is operating with any ethical principles would make any of these claims apriori.

Science in general is broadly evidence based, with the currently accepted science based solely on the evidence there is to support it. What is widely accepted changes based on the evidence. It's sometimes not as perfect as that, because it's full of humans (Even Einstein somewhat rejected the concept of probabilistic quantum theory), but it IS self correcting as evidenced by the changing scientific view of the world over the last 100 years.

No scientist, no scientific institute, or organisation of any kind would cite any of the things said here, they would not apriori claim to know for certain what the truth is as portrayed here.

Having an Apriori belief, and then investigating the world and attempting to find evidence for it (and indeed excluding the evidence that is contrary to that aprior belief) is not science or scientific; indeed it is the very antithesis of science.

What it is, however, is Apologetics; which is trying to convince you that something is true rather than necessarily showing it; like most religious approachs normally requires some aspect of convincing through false authority.

Apologetics works the way it does, and argues the way it does because almost any speculative explanation, regardless of it's veracity can be made to fit the evidence with enough speculative explanations of where the evidence does not fit, and enough misrepresentation of what the evidence shows.

This is why focus is ALWAYS primarily detailed when it comes to particular aspects that seem to confirm such speculative explanations (such as flood geology), but dismissive and terse when it comes to discussing evidence that stands against it.

For example, this is why many Creationist websites, and Creationists could go into great lengths to list all the ways that life "appears" designed. Yet when asked to detail why taxonomy supports evolution will simply through out some over generalised statement that dismisses it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 4:02:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 3:45:43 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:34:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
From what I've seen so far, it's impossible to conclude that the ICR is a scientific research organisation, or that Dr Morris is doing any work in scientific research at all.

However, a reasonable alternative conclusion, August, is that this is a 40 year-old family-owned Evangelical communications organisation, getting its funding from ideological religious interests, and keeping them mollified by publishing religious tracts and the occasional antiscientific, antievolutionary polemic, while claiming an intellectual grandeur and authority that doesn't withstand even 30 minutes of casual scrutiny by anyone with any real experience in scientific research, like your humble correspondent.

I wish I could say that was a one-off, August, but unfortunately, for decades American Evangelicals have been cranking out fake-scientific institutions like sausages -- because apparently, fellow adherents will fund them to do that. :p

I will add to this, by also citing these "Tenets" of ICR:

http://www.icr.org...

No Scientist in ANY field at any time who is operating with any ethical principles would make any of these claims apriori.

Absolutely right, Ramshutu. Starting with a single answer, and then compiling supporting evidence to the exclusion of all other hypotheses is not simply unorthodox, it's unprofessional and unethical by scientific standards -- the sort of thing that would result in the scientific equivalent of being disbarred.

No scientist, no scientific institute, or organisation of any kind would cite any of the things said here, they would not apriori claim to know for certain what the truth is as portrayed here.

Exactly, It's an affront to the evidence, transparency and accountability underpinning the ethics of science itself.

What it is, however, is Apologetics; which is trying to convince you that something is true rather than necessarily showing it; like most religious approaches normally requires some aspect of convincing through false authority.

Indeed. Other practices that avoid these essential ethics while using the same techniques include pseudosciences like astrology and homeopathy, spiritualism, high-pressure door-to-door sales, and confidence tricksters. Sadly, religious apologists are in some very un-elevated company.

Aside from these techniques being appallingly exposed to corruption and abuse, when trusted authorities use them routinely it actually blunts the critical thought in the people who listen. A sad result is that in the developed world, Evangelicals and other Biblical literalists (JWs for example) have appallingly low science literacy, very low participation in the sciences, and may be very vulnerable to some real charlatans -- e.g. those of the Creflo A. Dollar pedigree, along with dubious institutions like the Institution for Creation Research.

Laypeople don't have to hang on every scientific pronouncement, but failing to learn critical thought, and what key qualities like evidence, accountability and transparency actually mean -- does oneself and one's community a great disservice.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 12:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Posted: 19 hours ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

I'll try again to get a response.

Until the environment changes, then adaptations lead to evolutionary survival.
Now, if you want to argue that the environment doesn't change...

BTW, if you're going to cut and paste you should at least show the site you are cutting and pasting from. To fail to do so and make postings look like your own is called plagiarism. You cut and pasted from...
http://www.modomedia.com...

This site is from a guy who describes himself as:
NOT A SCIENTIST
. In fact, I am more of a compiler of findings.

I believe in the sanctity of scripture, the sovereignty of God, in Jesus Christ as savior, a young earth, a worldwide cataclysmic flood, that men walked with dinosaurs,
Think
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 8:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 12:00:54 PM, ecco wrote:
Posted: 19 hours ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

I'll try again to get a response.

Until the environment changes, then adaptations lead to evolutionary survival.
Now, if you want to argue that the environment doesn't change...

BTW, if you're going to cut and paste you should at least show the site you are cutting and pasting from. To fail to do so and make postings look like your own is called plagiarism. You cut and pasted from...
http://www.modomedia.com...

This site is from a guy who describes himself as:
NOT A SCIENTIST
. In fact, I am more of a compiler of findings.

I believe in the sanctity of scripture, the sovereignty of God, in Jesus Christ as savior, a young earth, a worldwide cataclysmic flood, that men walked with dinosaurs,


I always DO atribute credit to links or pastes, if not with the link than in my preface. at least I think I do. can you show me my OP where you said I used that quote as my own? I honestly dont recall it. thank you! God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 9:21:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 8:12:22 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/13/2015 12:00:54 PM, ecco wrote:
Posted: 19 hours ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

I'll try again to get a response.

Until the environment changes, then adaptations lead to evolutionary survival.
Now, if you want to argue that the environment doesn't change...

BTW, if you're going to cut and paste you should at least show the site you are cutting and pasting from. To fail to do so and make postings look like your own is called plagiarism. You cut and pasted from...
http://www.modomedia.com...

This site is from a guy who describes himself as:
NOT A SCIENTIST
. In fact, I am more of a compiler of findings.



I always DO atribute credit to links or pastes, if not with the link than in my preface. at least I think I do.
I'll re can you show me my OP where you said I used that quote as my own? I honestly dont recall it. thank you! God Bless.

Do you now? The following is your Post #1 in its entirety. The portion in italics is your work, the portion in bold is cut and past:

becasue I just watched Appollo 13 last night that line--but with Houston--was in my head when I did this post. So Ive said before that in some ways parts of science are going backwards. like with quatum phsysics and astronomy, with Dark Energy. they cant explain even what a atom look like! LOL. or find an electron? they just have "probability" clouds. and now, huh what do ya know? cant explain 90% of the Universe!
Evolution too is ocming up against the God Wall, I call it. they run out of explaining facts becasue God was behind it, but they wont admit it. I said before the big Ironey thats coming is that science will lead us to God.
Heres some things that show you my point with Evolution. the things Dawkins cant explain either. and he DID say that many times Nature looks like it;s designed by a Creator. The God Wall wont be Climbed by Science, only rammed against and then it gets knocked out like if you run into a brick wall. here's some examples you non-believers might want to look at. please provide answers for these, and show your work! LOL.

Things Evolutionists Hate
The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.

God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by "empirical science" without hesitation.

Noah and The Ark
The Noah's Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don't have to "explain" it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a "great flood") to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth. And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms. The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil record. What we find buried in aqueous sediments are various animal "kinds". They are the same "kinds" we have today, with the exception of extinct kinds.

Unconformities, Paraconformities These are geological terms which are used to notate locations around the earth where the geological strata are "out of order" according to the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, when the most basic of sea-life is found sitting comfortably on top of strata containing "more evolved" organisms.

Living Fossils
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!

Stasis
It is one thing when you can find something in the fossils, say, a dinosaur and say, "see, that was a big, strange creature, and we don't have those anymore! We evolved!". But it is much more difficult when you find something that is said to be millions of years old and hasn't changed a bit. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well, that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where it just doesn't.

Laws of Nature
If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have "laws of nature"? Or for that matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.? What about laws of civilization, such as "do not kill" "do not lie". Why shouldn't we? If evolution is true than none of this would matter, and the world around us would be governed by chaos and accident.

Honest Evolutionists
The "great quotes" archives of the creationists are stuffed with statements made by frustrated evolutionists who fessed up to the weaknesses in the theory. You can bet that some of them wish they had kept their traps shut.


I like that one best. ^^^ God Bless!!

205 of your own words; 613 cut and pasted.
You gave no indication that you cut and pasted. You gave no attribution.

If you don't specifically show an attribution, you implicitly state it is your original work. And that is dishonest.
Think
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 10:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 9:21:38 PM, ecco wrote:
At 8/13/2015 8:12:22 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/13/2015 12:00:54 PM, ecco wrote:
Posted: 19 hours ago
At 8/11/2015 9:28:23 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

I'll try again to get a response.

Until the environment changes, then adaptations lead to evolutionary survival.
Now, if you want to argue that the environment doesn't change...

BTW, if you're going to cut and paste you should at least show the site you are cutting and pasting from. To fail to do so and make postings look like your own is called plagiarism. You cut and pasted from...
http://www.modomedia.com...

This site is from a guy who describes himself as:
NOT A SCIENTIST
. In fact, I am more of a compiler of findings.



I always DO atribute credit to links or pastes, if not with the link than in my preface. at least I think I do.
I'll re can you show me my OP where you said I used that quote as my own? I honestly dont recall it. thank you! God Bless.


Do you now? The following is your Post #1 in its entirety. The portion in italics is your work, the portion in bold is cut and past:

becasue I just watched Appollo 13 last night that line--but with Houston--was in my head when I did this post. So Ive said before that in some ways parts of science are going backwards. like with quatum phsysics and astronomy, with Dark Energy. they cant explain even what a atom look like! LOL. or find an electron? they just have "probability" clouds. and now, huh what do ya know? cant explain 90% of the Universe!
Evolution too is ocming up against the God Wall, I call it. they run out of explaining facts becasue God was behind it, but they wont admit it. I said before the big Ironey thats coming is that science will lead us to God.
Heres some things that show you my point with Evolution. the things Dawkins cant explain either. and he DID say that many times Nature looks like it;s designed by a Creator. The God Wall wont be Climbed by Science, only rammed against and then it gets knocked out like if you run into a brick wall. here's some examples you non-believers might want to look at. please provide answers for these, and show your work! LOL.

Things Evolutionists Hate
The Bible The Book of Books. Why won't it go away? Don't people realize it is just a bunch of mythology? Why don't they get it?! Well... perhaps they do get it. Maybe that is why it has stood the test of time.

God To believe in God is to believe in a supreme being, capable of creating life from non-life. This possibility is rejected by "empirical science" without hesitation.

Noah and The Ark
The Noah's Ark story has been around a long time. It is a permanent fixture in the human conscience. You don't have to "explain" it to anyone. Not only that, but it is a global story. Flood legends have been found in nearly every cultural center the world over. They have several things in common. A God, wanted to punish a people who had gone astray, he sent a worldwide flood (not fire, not hail, not giant flesh eating monsters, it is always a "great flood") to wipe out the evil that was upon the earth. A few were saved, and they repopulated the earth. This story has been preserved in more than 300 such 'myths' of ancient peoples around the earth. And what is worse, a global flood would explain away many of the strange features of the earth, and the fossils. Good evolutionsts are quick to point out that it was a "local" flood. But why don't ancient peoples recall it that way?

Natural Selection
This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it. Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary one.

The Fossil Record The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms. The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil record. What we find buried in aqueous sediments are various animal "kinds". They are the same "kinds" we have today, with the exception of extinct kinds.

Unconformities, Paraconformities These are geological terms which are used to notate locations around the earth where the geological strata are "out of order" according to the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, when the most basic of sea-life is found sitting comfortably on top of strata containing "more evolved" organisms.

Living Fossils
Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years! Now that is a disappearing act!

Stasis
It is one thing when you can find something in the fossils, say, a dinosaur and say, "see, that was a big, strange creature, and we don't have those anymore! We evolved!". But it is much more difficult when you find something that is said to be millions of years old and hasn't changed a bit. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well, that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where it just doesn't.

Laws of Nature
If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have "laws of nature"? Or for that matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.? What about laws of civilization, such as "do not kill" "do not lie". Why shouldn't we? If evolution is true than none of this would matter, and the world around us would be governed by chaos and accident.

Honest Evolutionists
The "great quotes" archives of the creationists are stuffed with statements made by frustrated evolutionists who fessed up to the weaknesses in the theory. You can bet that some of them wish they had kept their traps shut.


I like that one best. ^^^ God Bless!!


205 of your own words; 613 cut and pasted.
You gave no indication that you cut and pasted. You gave no attribution.

If you don't specifically show an attribution, you implicitly state it is your original work. And that is dishonest.

yep, you're right. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Thank you for letting me know about this. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 10:58:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gentle Readers..........Another member kindly pointed out to me that I made the OP list of problems for science (alleged) look as if it was my own composition. I'm sorry if anyobdy thought I tried to imply that. It was pasted from a website when I Googled that topic. I should have left a citation at the bottom. of course I though this was obvious as I think I have made it pretty cleay here my science smarts aren't near the level of whoevre wrote the article. Its all I can do to understand that stuff let alone write it. Thank you. And as always......yeah, God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!