I had a prof who was working with me on a problem in quantum chemistry. As we concluded I reiterated back to him the reasoning and results as sort of some final thoughts. He replied, "Yes, IF you believe in the Law of Conservation of Energy." That wasn't the first time he said that to me. He was just trying to get me to realize what assumptions are made when any scientific reasoning is done. Even when work is done based on the Laws of Physics, you realize you are assuming these Laws to be true.
Yes, scientists are skeptics.
. . . A long answer to a short
question. Because evolution is a complicated theory. Keep asking questions.
And do not take anybody's word for it, go out and see for yourself!
Why is it evolutionists are always on the defense? If they've got the evidence let it speak for itself!!!
The evidence is speaking for itself. It's just being blindly discarded to the side because most Creationists absolutely refuse to seriously consider it, particularly of it crosses/challenges Scripture.
Or maybe we're on the 'defensive' (as you love to call it) because it isn't evolution itself that is being 'defended' here, but the process of science itself; the discovery, the analysis, the scrutiny, the challenging of ideas held because of blind obedience, the daring to lay aside of That Which is Determined to be True Because The Holy Writ Says So.
Ie., the open process of thinking for ourselves, and demanding that things be either a) proven, or failing that b) are based upon the preponderance of the evidence, more than any competing theory.
And since you're so up on Charles Darwin, perhaps you have read about his history, particularly in when he challenged the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church of England, and what he had to go through because they stoutly stood against his theory of evolution, and they did so precisely because he openly challenged the Genesis account. (Their attitude which does nothing to show their dedication to independent thought, wouldn't you say?)
The Scopes Trial, same attitude. Openly challenging the Scriptures wasn't tolerated there. And they were blatent about it. (Hell, many of their descendants in Dayton Tenn. still stand behind the Creationists as regards that case. )
Nowadays the process against evolution is more subtle, more indirect. Now they want Creationism and ID to be taught as 'alternative' science. And the core reason why many scientists are against this isn't because of some mistaken (yet still popular) belief that evolution shall be the ONLY theory taught, like it was some freekin' gospel, but rather, because Creationism is anchored irremovebly on maintaining the authority of the Scriptures as regards the Genesis account, that alone keeps it from being regarded as a genuine science. Ie., the Genesis account is not allowed to be challenged, tested, scrutinized, criticized, etc. ... not if you are going to consider yourself a Creationist. They presuppose the Scriptures to be true regarding the earth's beginning, and then go from there to find supporting evidence.
Ie., the decision has been made first, the 'research' comes after. ... An approach that has all the integrity of VPW's version of 'research', no matter how well its presented.
If you think the Bible and Christianity is a farce, go ahead and believe that, I don't care. I've been irradiated with trying to have conversations with Christians about evolution because they normally turn out not to know the first thing about it. Of course non-Christians who believe in evolution turn out to know just as much.
(How some Christians reconcile evolution and the Bible I don't know, but that's a doctrinal discussion)
When I was preparing for the MCAT I was told the biology section is more verbal reasoning than the verbal reasoning section. And I agree that is the way a lot of biology is: Yak Yak Yak. Look at the evolution link I posted. So much time going into explaining the definition of "theory" and the like. That same prof in the biology review course went on to discuss that we need to "gently turn kids in the right direction when they leave home, don't pull the rug out too quick. Ease them out of their beliefs."(sic) WTF???? How does this help me prepare for the test? What's this got to do with medicine?
Another very good prof out of Harvard I had in a molecular genetics course would spend some time explaining the proteins that take part in DNA replication, transcription and translation. Amazing stuff. Absolutely amazing. He would end explanations with "Good job God." (Emphasizing it was awesome, and I agree.) He is a DNA authority. I once e-mailed him with a question to which he replied "Can't talk now, gotta fly to Virginia to testify in a DNA forensics trial" (sic) This was a 800 miles a away. I saw him the next night on the television news. Even if you believe in evolution (as this prof does), God is in the classroom.
I've taken many bio, biochem, genetic, molecular biology etc. courses and they just convince me more that evolution (all species on earth, past and present, are descendants of a common ancestor) is unlikely.
P.S., I find the question humorous too, ... in that you actually consider that a possible serious question to ask.
... particularly coming from a science teacher who teaches biology. :huh:
That's not an answer Garth. I'll post that question on evolution-creation forum. I'm sure that an evolutionist can give answer that at least shows they put some thought into it.
Good! Perhaps before then, you can post a question that shows that you put some thought behind it, as the 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question is laughable, both from a biological/evolutionary standpoint, as well as a philosophical one. Especially if you're going to use it as an attempt to pose a valid challenge to evolution.
I'm not a scientist perhaps, and even I can see that.
Good! Perhaps before then, you can post a question that shows that you put some thought behind it, as the 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question is laughable, both from a biological/evolutionary standpoint, as well as a philosophical one. Especially if you're going to use it as an attempt to pose a valid challenge to evolution.
I'm not a scientist perhaps, and even I can see that.
You can comprehend how species suddenly start laying eggs?
Maybe the way some of this evidence "speaks for itself" is through the voices of those who interpret it. Like I said in post # 37 it's all a matter of how one interprets the information. And not being an archeologist or paleontologist actively working out in the field – the data is coming to me second hand – usually accompanied with their [the scientist's] interpretation of the data.
Dooj has a valid point in post # 102 - we do not have any eyewitnesses or for that matter certified time-lapse film showing the processes that happened eons ago. I thought it was interesting when Groucho said in post # 31, "I believe that God created the process of evolution." My own belief system has evolved dramatically from when I left TWI. I am intrigued by the wealth of data from the sciences and find myself many times re-adjusting my opinion of things. I believe in God as the Creator – but as time goes on, I become less certain of exactly HOW He did things.
Sometimes we don't ask the right questions. Trying to figure out some things from limited data - reminds me of a riddle. Maybe you've heard it. The riddle goes like this: "Rick and Sally were found dead on the floor, below a window, lying in water, and broken glass. How did they die?" People can only ask questions requiring a yes/no answer – like "Is the broken glass from the window?" answer: "No." Question: "Did Rick and Sally drown?" answer: "No."…The trick of the riddle is in the assumption many folks have that Rick and Sally are human. I remember the light bulb coming on as people's line of questions narrowed down a detail of the glass – "was it from a drinking glass?" - "No."…"From a mirror?" – "No."…"From a skylight?" – "No."…"From a fishbowl?" – "Yes." Then comes the Ah-ha-moment "Are Rick and Sally fish?" – "Yes." …Rick and Sally, pet fish, died by asphyxiation when their fishbowl fell off the windowsill and broke.
So what does the evidence/research say to me? Maybe I'm asking a different question than someone else. I'm NOT asking "Does this prove God does or doesn't exist?" I'm asking, "What does this tell me about how God did this?"
[this post edited gradually, over eons of nanoseconds, as the idea slowly evolved]
Which evolved first, the chicken (or any egg-layer) or the egg?
(I mean this with all seriousness, but I find it humorous too :) )
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?
A. To teach the stupid deer. Therefore, the chicken is more evolved than the deer.
(I suppose that you need to live in Michigan to get it.)
Bolshevik, you wax socratic.
As with all life at the lowest rungs , biological processes such as reproduction are simple. A bacterium simply makes copies of itself and divides asexually. As a species mutates to adapt to the demands of its environment, it necessarily becomes more complex and its physical attributes become more specialized, like sexual reproduction.
A. To teach the stupid deer. Therefore, the chicken is more evolved than the deer.
(I suppose that you need to live in Michigan to get it.)
Bolshevik, you wax socratic.
As with all life at the lowest rungs , biological processes such as reproduction are simple. A bacterium simply makes copies of itself and divides asexually. As a species mutates to adapt to the demands of its environment, it necessarily becomes more complex and its physical attributes become more specialized, like sexual reproduction.
We are assuming an observed mechanism of advantageous mutation in addition to the previous genetic code. Then we are assuming single-cell life forms evolved into multi-celled that acted as a single organism. Then that group of cells reproduces in a method different from mitosis. A spore? An egg? A womb? What?
Do you think that _all_ sciences are based on exclusively direct observation of the object(s) in question? What about archeology? Direct observation of the person who's bones we study, and whos writings we may come across? How much in that scientific discipline is not based on direct observation? And yet is regarded widely as based on fact?
Do you think that _all_ sciences are based on exclusively direct observation of the object(s) in question?
That is what my physics profs taught. We know what we know from our time in the lab.
What about archeology?
Well, if you're comparing archeology and paleontology, show me the fossils. I still just see a record of "An animal was here". Not a progression of a developing species. You can arrange any group, fossilized and living, and make an evolutionary tree. Then rearrange it, make a different one. And again.
I see no proof in the fossil record. And what about the fossils that turn up that don't fit the "status quo"? (I hope to see those at the new museum).
Direct observation of the person who's bones we study, and whos writings we may come across? How much in that scientific discipline is not based on direct observation?
none of it is based on direct observation.
And yet is regarded widely as based on fact?
Vestigial organs. How many of them turn out to be actually serving a function?
Why should I simply accept evolution to be true? It's not like the other theories. For the others the profs send me to the lab and say "prove it to yourself." There's a lot of work involved. Math and experiments. And then application. And nothing is absolute.
Evolution is different. Pull out a book on evolution and you'll see they talk religion. It's just talk. A verbal argument. It shifts and changes, whatever new discoveries are made is explained in light of the evolution idea. Instead of saying, "hmm, this doesn't fit our previous ideas," they say "How does this fit in evolution? Because it has to fit". And how is it applied? What's the practical application?
The more science I learn, the more I honestly doubt it. (And I began believing evolution to be true).
Garth,
I'll take your answer to be "I believe in evolution because a bunch of other people say it is so."
It looks like you're opposed to evolution because you don't want it to be true. This topic started off about a creationist museum, then you came here bashing evolution but claimed to not be a creationist, but in other posts claimed you are a creationist. Then somehow (I've not been around much for the past few days so I didn't see it) you started questioning plate tectonics?
It makes sense to do your own research and find out your own information, but at some point you do have to trust in others to be correct rather than redo everything they've done. I'm a computer programmer, yet I have little idea of how a microchip is made, nor do I have any interest in learning how to make them. You could call it "faith" that I consider microchips to be a real thing, and mock that I don't consider the idea that computers are just devil spirits in a box as being valid despite not researching it. The theory of evolution also seems to be valid based on the evidence that it sounds like you reject for religious reasons. You've not given any alternatives here, other than seemingly supporting the idea that the Earth and life was created by the Invisible Sky Giant. If that's not your view, then what is?
No, my answer is "I believe that evolution theory is true because other people has presented enough connecting (and logical) evidence to convince me that said theory is true. I have rejected the creationist theory because simply presumptively believing the scriptural account, and blindly having that at the unquestionable standard stops that theory from having any scientific basis applied to it whatsoever."
And as to the argument that the same blind faith is being applied to the theory of evolution, my answer to that is, there are indeed certain scientists who treat evolution like its an article of faith. But that's the in-duh-vidual doing that. Keep in mind that Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution, _then_ went out to look for evidence to back it up. He dealt with it from the scientific standpoint: Investigate first, come to your (tentative) conclusion afterwards.
Conclusions based on faith (which creationism is when you boil it right down) come to the conclusion first, _then_ scrounge around for evidence to back it up, and reject any evidence that doesn't comply with the faith conclusion. And because of that, its creationism as a whole that is based on blind faith.
Tell me something. If we are to accept theories like (Christian based) creationism as scientific alternatives, then why not accept the Hindu creation account? I mean, can you disprove that theory? You weren't there to observe the process, so how do you really know that that isn't true? ... Or how about applying that test on the Greco-Roman myth creation account? ... Or the Norse Viking account, complete with Odin and Thor? ..... I mean, really. Can you really disprove all that?
Tell me something. If we are to accept theories like (Christian based) creationism as scientific alternatives, then why not accept the Hindu creation account? I mean, can you disprove that theory? You weren't there to observe the process, so how do you really know that that isn't true? ... Or how about applying that test on the Greco-Roman myth creation account? ... Or the Norse Viking account, complete with Odin and Thor? ..... I mean, really. Can you really disprove all that?
See what I mean?
I was never trying to prove the creation account. (Yes I know even the creationist say "If we disprove evolution then our account must be true blah blah blah")
The evolution push sucks the fun out of science. If they would just say "we can prove microevolution, here see, there it is, we postulate maybe all species diverged in this way" I would take that as an idea. Instead, everything in a biology class centers around evolution. Everything in a physics class doesn't center around the Big Bang Theory. Its left for later, to discuss and ponder. Evolution is dropped on you like the Bible.
It looks like you're opposed to evolution because you don't want it to be true. This topic started off about a creationist museum, then you came here bashing evolution but claimed to not be a creationist, but in other posts claimed you are a creationist. Then somehow (I've not been around much for the past few days so I didn't see it) you started questioning plate tectonics?
It makes sense to do your own research and find out your own information, but at some point you do have to trust in others to be correct rather than redo everything they've done. I'm a computer programmer, yet I have little idea of how a microchip is made, nor do I have any interest in learning how to make them. You could call it "faith" that I consider microchips to be a real thing, and mock that I don't consider the idea that computers are just devil spirits in a box as being valid despite not researching it. The theory of evolution also seems to be valid based on the evidence that it sounds like you reject for religious reasons. You've not given any alternatives here, other than seemingly supporting the idea that the Earth and life was created by the Invisible Sky Giant. If that's not your view, then what is?
I believe I have heard of non-evolution atheists. You don't have to be religious to not believe in evolution.
Cancer. Mister P-Mosh. Cancer.
I was working in a lab for a research scientist at a local school of medicine. He studies apoptosis. (Programmed cell-death). This is an important study in understanding cancer.
It suddenly dawned on me that evolutionists don't have a mechanism yet. Darwin's natural selection idea doesn't go deep enough. Sure, the most "fit" creatures survive and reproduce. I'm fine with that. But even evolutionists are doubting that this all there is to it. (BTW, Gregol Mendel's work was sitting on Darwin's desk, but Darwin never opened it.)
In order for new traits to arise a mutation in the gentetic code must at some point occur. I had always assumed that beneficial mutations occur on occasion that inevitably result in species evolution. Then I realized that all known mutations result in disease. Most notably cancer. There are just so many ways for cancer to occur. (That's why it's so hard to fight, there's no one way or simple way in which cancer can arise.)
I already asked in this thread for a documentation of a new protein arising due to mutation.
Plus, there's so many proteins devoted to maintaining the genetic code. It's like our body has scribes devoted to maintaining our blueprints.
I wonder if we took the all the years evolutionist claim life has been around. (Billions I think) Then calculated all the "beneficial" mutations necessary for all the evolution that has occured. Seems like a number in the billions X billions X billions. At what rate should beneficial mutations occur?Surely these mutations would be something we would be seeing in our lifetime. I only know of damaging ones.
These mutations need to of course occur in our reproductive cells. Mixing of information occurs there. But new traits due to new information? Dogs have floppy ears because information in their genetic code has been lost. Nothing gained.
It looks like you're opposed to evolution because you don't want it to be true. This topic started off about a creationist museum, then you came here bashing evolution but claimed to not be a creationist, but in other posts claimed you are a creationist. Then somehow (I've not been around much for the past few days so I didn't see it) you started questioning plate tectonics?
Someone mentioned dinosaurs on the ark is silly. I simply pointed out the whole ark concept is silly too. I already mentioned the evolutionist talk about their belief in God in the classroom. Even evolutionists believe in God and push their agenda. You're trying to oversimplify the arguent Mr. P.
You don't believe in God. That's your right. You believe in evolution. That's your right. You believe something else entirely. That's your right.
But don't tell there's a pile of facts proving evolution. Now you're lying to me. Unless you're willing to admit you've "taken it on faith."
It makes sense to do your own research and find out your own information, but at some point you do have to trust in others to be correct rather than redo everything they've done. I'm a computer programmer, yet I have little idea of how a microchip is made, nor do I have any interest in learning how to make them. You could call it "faith" that I consider microchips to be a real thing, and mock that I don't consider the idea that computers are just devil spirits in a box as being valid despite not researching it. The theory of evolution also seems to be valid based on the evidence that it sounds like you reject for religious reasons. You've not given any alternatives here, other than seemingly supporting the idea that the Earth and life was created by the Invisible Sky Giant. If that's not your view, then what is?
Trust others? You mean like twi wanted me to? Push their ideas on others acting like I know something for certain? twi's study methods are as idiotic as the evolution reasoning.
I don't know what happened exactly, and I'm comfortable with that. If I knew everything there wouldn't be a point in me studying science would there?
What religion am I Mr. P? I don't associate with anyone right now. I'm free to make my own decisions. For now at least.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
23
8
55
Popular Days
Jun 18
28
Jun 14
26
Jun 20
23
Jun 19
20
Top Posters In This Topic
likeaneagle 17 posts
GarthP2000 23 posts
T-Bone 8 posts
Bolshevik 55 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2007
28 posts
Jun 14 2007
26 posts
Jun 20 2007
23 posts
Jun 19 2007
20 posts
Bolshevik
I had a prof who was working with me on a problem in quantum chemistry. As we concluded I reiterated back to him the reasoning and results as sort of some final thoughts. He replied, "Yes, IF you believe in the Law of Conservation of Energy." That wasn't the first time he said that to me. He was just trying to get me to realize what assumptions are made when any scientific reasoning is done. Even when work is done based on the Laws of Physics, you realize you are assuming these Laws to be true.
Yes, scientists are skeptics.
Certainly something most fail to do.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oenophile,
here's at least one response to the "walking whale that swims"
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C...mp;sb=5&o=0
and here's an easy read pro-evolution work:
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf
It dives right into religion and explaining what a theory is and blah blah blah.
Why is it evolutionists are always on the defense? If they've got the evidence let it speak for itself!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
The evidence is speaking for itself. It's just being blindly discarded to the side because most Creationists absolutely refuse to seriously consider it, particularly of it crosses/challenges Scripture.
Or maybe we're on the 'defensive' (as you love to call it) because it isn't evolution itself that is being 'defended' here, but the process of science itself; the discovery, the analysis, the scrutiny, the challenging of ideas held because of blind obedience, the daring to lay aside of That Which is Determined to be True Because The Holy Writ Says So.
Ie., the open process of thinking for ourselves, and demanding that things be either a) proven, or failing that b) are based upon the preponderance of the evidence, more than any competing theory.
And since you're so up on Charles Darwin, perhaps you have read about his history, particularly in when he challenged the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church of England, and what he had to go through because they stoutly stood against his theory of evolution, and they did so precisely because he openly challenged the Genesis account. (Their attitude which does nothing to show their dedication to independent thought, wouldn't you say?)
The Scopes Trial, same attitude. Openly challenging the Scriptures wasn't tolerated there. And they were blatent about it. (Hell, many of their descendants in Dayton Tenn. still stand behind the Creationists as regards that case.
)
Nowadays the process against evolution is more subtle, more indirect. Now they want Creationism and ID to be taught as 'alternative' science. And the core reason why many scientists are against this isn't because of some mistaken (yet still popular) belief that evolution shall be the ONLY theory taught, like it was some freekin' gospel, but rather, because Creationism is anchored irremovebly on maintaining the authority of the Scriptures as regards the Genesis account, that alone keeps it from being regarded as a genuine science. Ie., the Genesis account is not allowed to be challenged, tested, scrutinized, criticized, etc. ... not if you are going to consider yourself a Creationist. They presuppose the Scriptures to be true regarding the earth's beginning, and then go from there to find supporting evidence.
Ie., the decision has been made first, the 'research' comes after. ... An approach that has all the integrity of VPW's version of 'research', no matter how well its presented.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Now it's on your shoulders to present it.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Garth,
If you think the Bible and Christianity is a farce, go ahead and believe that, I don't care. I've been irradiated with trying to have conversations with Christians about evolution because they normally turn out not to know the first thing about it. Of course non-Christians who believe in evolution turn out to know just as much.
(How some Christians reconcile evolution and the Bible I don't know, but that's a doctrinal discussion)
When I was preparing for the MCAT I was told the biology section is more verbal reasoning than the verbal reasoning section. And I agree that is the way a lot of biology is: Yak Yak Yak. Look at the evolution link I posted. So much time going into explaining the definition of "theory" and the like. That same prof in the biology review course went on to discuss that we need to "gently turn kids in the right direction when they leave home, don't pull the rug out too quick. Ease them out of their beliefs."(sic) WTF???? How does this help me prepare for the test? What's this got to do with medicine?
Another very good prof out of Harvard I had in a molecular genetics course would spend some time explaining the proteins that take part in DNA replication, transcription and translation. Amazing stuff. Absolutely amazing. He would end explanations with "Good job God." (Emphasizing it was awesome, and I agree.) He is a DNA authority. I once e-mailed him with a question to which he replied "Can't talk now, gotta fly to Virginia to testify in a DNA forensics trial" (sic) This was a 800 miles a away. I saw him the next night on the television news. Even if you believe in evolution (as this prof does), God is in the classroom.
I've taken many bio, biochem, genetic, molecular biology etc. courses and they just convince me more that evolution (all species on earth, past and present, are descendants of a common ancestor) is unlikely.
(edited for grammar)
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oenophile,
Which evolved first, the chicken (or any egg-layer) or the egg?
(I mean this with all seriousness, but I find it humorous too :) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... the species/genus/family before it.
NEXT!
P.S., I find the question humorous too, ... in that you actually consider that a possible serious question to ask.
... particularly coming from a science teacher who teaches biology. :huh:
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That's not an answer Garth. I'll post that question on evolution-creation forum. I'm sure that an evolutionist can give answer that at least shows they put some thought into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Good! Perhaps before then, you can post a question that shows that you put some thought behind it, as the 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question is laughable, both from a biological/evolutionary standpoint, as well as a philosophical one. Especially if you're going to use it as an attempt to pose a valid challenge to evolution.
I'm not a scientist perhaps, and even I can see that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You can comprehend how species suddenly start laying eggs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Maybe the way some of this evidence "speaks for itself" is through the voices of those who interpret it. Like I said in post # 37 it's all a matter of how one interprets the information. And not being an archeologist or paleontologist actively working out in the field – the data is coming to me second hand – usually accompanied with their [the scientist's] interpretation of the data.
Dooj has a valid point in post # 102 - we do not have any eyewitnesses or for that matter certified time-lapse film showing the processes that happened eons ago. I thought it was interesting when Groucho said in post # 31, "I believe that God created the process of evolution." My own belief system has evolved dramatically from when I left TWI. I am intrigued by the wealth of data from the sciences and find myself many times re-adjusting my opinion of things. I believe in God as the Creator – but as time goes on, I become less certain of exactly HOW He did things.
Sometimes we don't ask the right questions. Trying to figure out some things from limited data - reminds me of a riddle. Maybe you've heard it. The riddle goes like this: "Rick and Sally were found dead on the floor, below a window, lying in water, and broken glass. How did they die?" People can only ask questions requiring a yes/no answer – like "Is the broken glass from the window?" answer: "No." Question: "Did Rick and Sally drown?" answer: "No."…The trick of the riddle is in the assumption many folks have that Rick and Sally are human. I remember the light bulb coming on as people's line of questions narrowed down a detail of the glass – "was it from a drinking glass?" - "No."…"From a mirror?" – "No."…"From a skylight?" – "No."…"From a fishbowl?" – "Yes." Then comes the Ah-ha-moment "Are Rick and Sally fish?" – "Yes." …Rick and Sally, pet fish, died by asphyxiation when their fishbowl fell off the windowsill and broke.
So what does the evidence/research say to me? Maybe I'm asking a different question than someone else. I'm NOT asking "Does this prove God does or doesn't exist?" I'm asking, "What does this tell me about how God did this?"
[this post edited gradually, over eons of nanoseconds, as the idea slowly evolved]
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Man, I don't know if I can wait that long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Garth,
What convinces you that all species evolved from a common ancestor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?
A. To teach the stupid deer. Therefore, the chicken is more evolved than the deer.
(I suppose that you need to live in Michigan to get it.)
Bolshevik, you wax socratic.
As with all life at the lowest rungs , biological processes such as reproduction are simple. A bacterium simply makes copies of itself and divides asexually. As a species mutates to adapt to the demands of its environment, it necessarily becomes more complex and its physical attributes become more specialized, like sexual reproduction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We are assuming an observed mechanism of advantageous mutation in addition to the previous genetic code. Then we are assuming single-cell life forms evolved into multi-celled that acted as a single organism. Then that group of cells reproduces in a method different from mitosis. A spore? An egg? A womb? What?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Bolshevik,
Do you think that _all_ sciences are based on exclusively direct observation of the object(s) in question? What about archeology? Direct observation of the person who's bones we study, and whos writings we may come across? How much in that scientific discipline is not based on direct observation? And yet is regarded widely as based on fact?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That is what my physics profs taught. We know what we know from our time in the lab.
Well, if you're comparing archeology and paleontology, show me the fossils. I still just see a record of "An animal was here". Not a progression of a developing species. You can arrange any group, fossilized and living, and make an evolutionary tree. Then rearrange it, make a different one. And again.I see no proof in the fossil record. And what about the fossils that turn up that don't fit the "status quo"? (I hope to see those at the new museum).
none of it is based on direct observation.
Vestigial organs. How many of them turn out to be actually serving a function?
Why should I simply accept evolution to be true? It's not like the other theories. For the others the profs send me to the lab and say "prove it to yourself." There's a lot of work involved. Math and experiments. And then application. And nothing is absolute.
Evolution is different. Pull out a book on evolution and you'll see they talk religion. It's just talk. A verbal argument. It shifts and changes, whatever new discoveries are made is explained in light of the evolution idea. Instead of saying, "hmm, this doesn't fit our previous ideas," they say "How does this fit in evolution? Because it has to fit". And how is it applied? What's the practical application?
The more science I learn, the more I honestly doubt it. (And I began believing evolution to be true).
Garth,
I'll take your answer to be "I believe in evolution because a bunch of other people say it is so."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Bolshevik,
It looks like you're opposed to evolution because you don't want it to be true. This topic started off about a creationist museum, then you came here bashing evolution but claimed to not be a creationist, but in other posts claimed you are a creationist. Then somehow (I've not been around much for the past few days so I didn't see it) you started questioning plate tectonics?
It makes sense to do your own research and find out your own information, but at some point you do have to trust in others to be correct rather than redo everything they've done. I'm a computer programmer, yet I have little idea of how a microchip is made, nor do I have any interest in learning how to make them. You could call it "faith" that I consider microchips to be a real thing, and mock that I don't consider the idea that computers are just devil spirits in a box as being valid despite not researching it. The theory of evolution also seems to be valid based on the evidence that it sounds like you reject for religious reasons. You've not given any alternatives here, other than seemingly supporting the idea that the Earth and life was created by the Invisible Sky Giant. If that's not your view, then what is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
No, my answer is "I believe that evolution theory is true because other people has presented enough connecting (and logical) evidence to convince me that said theory is true. I have rejected the creationist theory because simply presumptively believing the scriptural account, and blindly having that at the unquestionable standard stops that theory from having any scientific basis applied to it whatsoever."
And as to the argument that the same blind faith is being applied to the theory of evolution, my answer to that is, there are indeed certain scientists who treat evolution like its an article of faith. But that's the in-duh-vidual doing that. Keep in mind that Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution, _then_ went out to look for evidence to back it up. He dealt with it from the scientific standpoint: Investigate first, come to your (tentative) conclusion afterwards.
Conclusions based on faith (which creationism is when you boil it right down) come to the conclusion first, _then_ scrounge around for evidence to back it up, and reject any evidence that doesn't comply with the faith conclusion. And because of that, its creationism as a whole that is based on blind faith.
Tell me something. If we are to accept theories like (Christian based) creationism as scientific alternatives, then why not accept the Hindu creation account? I mean, can you disprove that theory? You weren't there to observe the process, so how do you really know that that isn't true? ... Or how about applying that test on the Greco-Roman myth creation account? ... Or the Norse Viking account, complete with Odin and Thor? ..... I mean, really. Can you really disprove all that?
See what I mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was never trying to prove the creation account. (Yes I know even the creationist say "If we disprove evolution then our account must be true blah blah blah")
The evolution push sucks the fun out of science. If they would just say "we can prove microevolution, here see, there it is, we postulate maybe all species diverged in this way" I would take that as an idea. Instead, everything in a biology class centers around evolution. Everything in a physics class doesn't center around the Big Bang Theory. Its left for later, to discuss and ponder. Evolution is dropped on you like the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I believe I have heard of non-evolution atheists. You don't have to be religious to not believe in evolution.
Cancer. Mister P-Mosh. Cancer.
I was working in a lab for a research scientist at a local school of medicine. He studies apoptosis. (Programmed cell-death). This is an important study in understanding cancer.
It suddenly dawned on me that evolutionists don't have a mechanism yet. Darwin's natural selection idea doesn't go deep enough. Sure, the most "fit" creatures survive and reproduce. I'm fine with that. But even evolutionists are doubting that this all there is to it. (BTW, Gregol Mendel's work was sitting on Darwin's desk, but Darwin never opened it.)
In order for new traits to arise a mutation in the gentetic code must at some point occur. I had always assumed that beneficial mutations occur on occasion that inevitably result in species evolution. Then I realized that all known mutations result in disease. Most notably cancer. There are just so many ways for cancer to occur. (That's why it's so hard to fight, there's no one way or simple way in which cancer can arise.)
I already asked in this thread for a documentation of a new protein arising due to mutation.
Plus, there's so many proteins devoted to maintaining the genetic code. It's like our body has scribes devoted to maintaining our blueprints.
I wonder if we took the all the years evolutionist claim life has been around. (Billions I think) Then calculated all the "beneficial" mutations necessary for all the evolution that has occured. Seems like a number in the billions X billions X billions. At what rate should beneficial mutations occur?Surely these mutations would be something we would be seeing in our lifetime. I only know of damaging ones.
These mutations need to of course occur in our reproductive cells. Mixing of information occurs there. But new traits due to new information? Dogs have floppy ears because information in their genetic code has been lost. Nothing gained.
Evolution is simply illogical.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://foolmoon.com/printthread.php/Board/...59326/type/post
non-evolution atheist etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Someone mentioned dinosaurs on the ark is silly. I simply pointed out the whole ark concept is silly too. I already mentioned the evolutionist talk about their belief in God in the classroom. Even evolutionists believe in God and push their agenda. You're trying to oversimplify the arguent Mr. P.
You don't believe in God. That's your right. You believe in evolution. That's your right. You believe something else entirely. That's your right.
But don't tell there's a pile of facts proving evolution. Now you're lying to me. Unless you're willing to admit you've "taken it on faith."
Trust others? You mean like twi wanted me to? Push their ideas on others acting like I know something for certain? twi's study methods are as idiotic as the evolution reasoning.
I don't know what happened exactly, and I'm comfortable with that. If I knew everything there wouldn't be a point in me studying science would there?
What religion am I Mr. P? I don't associate with anyone right now. I'm free to make my own decisions. For now at least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.