PDA

View Full Version : "Proponents of Evolution" ????



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Nicholas Scheuer
04-10-2009, 04:30 PM
OK, so is there anyone here on the WBF who is NOT a "proponent" of evolution?

I overheard a conversation on NPR earlier this afternoon concerning the Texas ruling in support of the teaching of alternatives to evolution in the schools. Apparently the Religious Fundamentalists who pushed for this ruling refer to their opposition as "proponents of evolution".

In the broadcast conversation I heard, the "scientific expert witness" was saying that the reality of evolution is no longer "open for duscussion". Religious fundamentalists can believe what they like, however, their opposition are not "proponents of Evolution".

Moby Nick

Flying Orca
04-10-2009, 05:02 PM
The problem is that evolution is difficult to understand (unless you actually try) and doesn't have any obvious technological spinoffs to which one can point as a tangible demonstration. Faced with the "God of the gaps" scenario, the immensely creative fundies push back against science by... trying to create a gap where there isn't one.

Funny how they never take on electronics theory, or ballistics theory, or chemical theory - that periodic table is mighty controversial, and I'm sure I can find some academic whore to stand up on his hind legs and say so!

Peerie Maa
04-10-2009, 05:15 PM
The problem is that evolution is difficult to understand (unless you actually try) and doesn't have any obvious technological spinoffs to which one can point as a tangible demonstration. Faced with the "God of the gaps" scenario, the immensely creative fundies push back against science by... trying to create a gap where there isn't one.

Funny how they never take on electronics theory, or ballistics theory, or chemical theory - that periodic table is mighty controversial, and I'm sure I can find some academic whore to stand up on his hind legs and say so!

Why is it so difficult to understand, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and gardeners are doing it all of the time.
I do not think that they can't. I think that maybe they do not have enough confidence in their faith, so they have to believe that the book of remembered myths is literally true, and they are more interested in that book than the teaching reported in the second book.

Flying Orca
04-10-2009, 05:18 PM
Agreed; it's insecurity in their faith. (There might be some who find this conversation offensive; it is what I've heard referred to as "Myth-on-a-stick Day", after all!)

Peerie Maa
04-10-2009, 05:27 PM
Agreed; it's insecurity in their faith. (There might be some who find this conversation offensive; it is what I've heard referred to as "Myth-on-a-stick Day", after all!)

Who ever said that was a tad offensive, the Romans did nail criminals to to wooden cross bars. Through the wrists and heels though, not as commonly depicted. I heard years ago that a copy of the arrest warrant for Christ survived somewhere, so there is no real doubt that he ended up nailed to a baulk of timber.
There is perhaps an irony. The very techniques that are testing and filling in the gaps of evolution (digging up bones) are finding all sort of evidence about Jesus of Nazareth and his milieu.

Tom Montgomery
04-10-2009, 05:36 PM
I take it that you miss SammyF?

By the way, the preferred perjoratives are "Darwinism" and "Darwinists."

John Smith
04-10-2009, 06:08 PM
The problem is that evolution is difficult to understand (unless you actually try) and doesn't have any obvious technological spinoffs to which one can point as a tangible demonstration. Faced with the "God of the gaps" scenario, the immensely creative fundies push back against science by... trying to create a gap where there isn't one.

Funny how they never take on electronics theory, or ballistics theory, or chemical theory - that periodic table is mighty controversial, and I'm sure I can find some academic whore to stand up on his hind legs and say so!

Actually, there are simple places to point to if you wish to show examples of evolution. The mosquito became immune to DDT, for example, in a few generations. Bacteria become immune to antibiotics.

These are modest, but commonly recognized, changes of species.

ljb5
04-10-2009, 06:19 PM
Who ever said that was a tad offensive, the Romans did nail criminals to to wooden cross bars. Through the wrists and heels though, not as commonly depicted. I heard years ago that a copy of the arrest warrant for Christ survived somewhere, so there is no real doubt that he ended up nailed to a baulk of timber.
There is perhaps an irony. The very techniques that are testing and filling in the gaps of evolution (digging up bones) are finding all sort of evidence about Jesus of Nazareth and his milieu.

There's a critical difference between finding evidence of the reality and evidence of the supernatural.

I suspect Jesus was a real person, I believe he was an influential religious leader. I don't doubt that he was crucified....

...it's all the other stuff which make me skeptical. Resurrection and ascension, in particular, seem unlikely. No matter how thoroughly you can prove he was real, it doesn't prove he was divine.

There's a risk that someone might accidentally prove he wasn't. It would be awfully inconvenient to find a box of bones belonging to a man who rose from the dead.

I'd like to see a copy of that arrest warrant. Was it written in English and recently uncovered in upstate New York?

John Smith
04-10-2009, 06:21 PM
There's a critical difference between finding evidence of the reality and evidence of the supernatural.

I suspect Jesus was a real person, I believe he was an influential religious leader. I don't doubt that he was crucified....

...it's all the other stuff which make me skeptical. Resurrection and ascension, in particular, seem unlikely. No matter how thoroughly you can prove he was real, it doesn't prove he was divine.

There's a risk that someone might accidentally prove he wasn't. It would be awfully inconvenient to find a box of bones belonging to a man who rose from the dead.

I'd like to see a copy of that arrest warrant. Was it written in English and recently uncovered in upstate New York?

I actually always felt Jesus was the world's first magician/illusionist.

Back then, that would certainly have made him look divine.

Peerie Maa
04-10-2009, 06:23 PM
There's a critical difference between finding evidence of the reality and evidence of the supernatural.

I suspect Jesus was a real person, I believe he was an influential religious leader. I don't doubt that he was crucified....

...it's all the other stuff which make me skeptical. Resurrection and ascension, in particular, seem unlikely. No matter how thoroughly you can prove he was real, it doesn't prove he was divine.

There's a risk that someone might accidentally prove he wasn't. It would be awfully inconvenient to find a box of bones belonging to a man who rose from the dead.

I'd like to see a copy of that arrest warrant. Was it written in English and recently uncovered in upstate New York?

You and I both.

I've searched for that warrant on t'web without success. It was not a very flattering physical description.

Flying Orca
04-10-2009, 06:23 PM
I actually always felt Jesus was the world's first magician/illusionist.

Back then, that would certainly have made him look divine.

Far from the first, man - if it were verifiable, I'd bet that shamans have been pulling off that kind of thing for hundreds of thousands of years.

Flying Orca
04-10-2009, 06:25 PM
Actually, there are simple places to point to if you wish to show examples of evolution. The mosquito became immune to DDT, for example, in a few generations. Bacteria become immune to antibiotics.

These are modest, but commonly recognized, changes of species.

Of course there are, but you actually have to look at them with an open mind. This is what I meant by "unless you actually try" in my original post. I think the overlap between people who understand evolution and people who rail against it is essentially nil.

John Smith
04-10-2009, 06:32 PM
Of course there are, but you actually have to look at them with an open mind. This is what I meant by "unless you actually try" in my original post. I think the overlap between people who understand evolution and people who rail against it is essentially nil.

I believe the time when religion ran the world is what we now refer to as the "dark" ages. Religious beliefs block honest scientific developments.

Sad part is that these people really belief their beliefs are fact. There is a reason why we call it "faith."

Look at the problems Notre Dame is having with our president speaking there. All based on differing religious beliefs.

The problem with ALL of this is that something in human nature says that anything we have that divides people into separate groups, be it high schools, religious beliefs, politcal parties, etc., simply gives people another reason to fight each other.

My view of religious people is as long as it helps them make it through the day, fine. However, when they decide they have to sell me their product, I have a problem.

It really annoys the hell out of me when they organize and try, via laws, to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Just a couple of days ago I got in a brief discussion about the power of prayer. All I said was, "when the levees broke, the water didn't care whether or not people were religious, if they prayed, or who they prayed to."

Keith Wilson
04-10-2009, 08:32 PM
so is there anyone here on the WBF who is NOT a "proponent" of evolution?There have been a few. Honda Shadow was one; a nice guy but definitely a biblical literalism, six days and all. SamF claims to be "agnostic" on the subject, but will argue to the death against it.

Nanoose
04-10-2009, 10:54 PM
Evolution can mean quite a range of things. Do I believe in evolution? Yes, and no. There is a body of data that leads me to conclude both, yes and no.

As for Jesus' resurrection, mentioned above, the historical data indicates only 2 things: his tomb was empty, and there were a significant number of people, both pro and antagonists, who claim to have seen him alive post death. The data is solid - the conclusions drawn from it vary. A contemporary Jewish first century historian believes resurrection best accounts for all available historical info. Now, what that means may vary, mostly dependent on one's worldview, but his life and resurrection seem pretty well established.

Glen Longino
04-10-2009, 11:25 PM
..."but his life and resurrection seem pretty well established."

His life, maybe, so far as he existed as a living human.
His so-called miracles are not established and exist only as hearsay.
His resurrection is in absolutely no way established.

dm_scott
04-10-2009, 11:37 PM
How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd religious beliefs, have originated, we do not know; nor how it is that they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on the minds of men; but it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.
-- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man p. 122

WX
04-10-2009, 11:57 PM
Have you ever wondered what people would be wearing around their necks if Jesus had be executed by some other means...say for example by guillotine?

ShagRock
04-11-2009, 12:03 AM
Posted by Nick:
I heard years ago that a copy of the arrest warrant for Christ survived somewhere, so there is no real doubt that he ended up nailed to a baulk of timber.

Sounds like faith based logic!:D

WX
04-11-2009, 12:10 AM
Posted by Nick:
I heard years ago that a copy of the arrest warrant for Christ survived somewhere, so there is no real doubt that he ended up nailed to a baulk of timber.

Sounds bit like all the relics of the cross, apparently there's enough wood fragments to build several crosses and enough nails to nail up quite few messiahs.

brad9798
04-11-2009, 12:30 AM
I wear an anchor with a cross on it around my neck ... I must be stupid! ;)

ShagRock
04-11-2009, 12:32 AM
Posted by NaNoose:
there were a significant number of people, both pro and antagonists, who claim to have seen him alive post death

And I suppose you interviewed every last one!

brad9798
04-11-2009, 12:34 AM
Shagrock ... are you being serious ... or DOUBTFUL!/SCARED/INSECURE?

ShagRock
04-11-2009, 12:57 AM
Brad....you sound like the early morning bible thumper at the door!:D

Dave Gray
04-11-2009, 01:16 AM
I believe the time when religion ran the world is what we now refer to as the "dark" ages. Religious beliefs block honest scientific developments.


I am not a religious person - very far from it. But the ignorance in this statement is too much to pass up. The period referred to as 'the dark ages' is the period following the collapse of the western Roman empire up until about the year 1100 AD, give or take a century - some may argue about 1400 AD. This was an age when Europe was overrun by several tribal invasions, such as by the Vandals, Goths, and Huns. The Black Plague made several incursions.

Rail against the church as much as you like and you can be fully justified for it, but the church formed the communal network of the time. Monks in Ireland preserved much of the learning that was lost after the collapse of Rome. When the political structures advanced enough that the knowledge could again be made available the seeds were planted that led to the Renaissance.

Herby
04-11-2009, 01:18 AM
and there were a significant number of people, both pro and antagonists, who claim to have seen him alive post death. .

How can you be alive "post" death, or is this something to do with the soul which we can't see either?

dhic001
04-11-2009, 03:48 AM
I wear an anchor with a cross on it around my neck ... I must be stupid! ;)

If you got a stock less anchor to hang around your neck, it might be more comfortable. A Danforth or the like would lie quite comfortably I should think.
Daniel

Presuming Ed
04-11-2009, 03:56 AM
If evolution isn't happening, where did MRSA come from?

Peerie Maa
04-11-2009, 06:28 AM
Sounds bit like all the relics of the cross, apparently there's enough wood fragments to build several crosses and enough nails to nail up quite few messiahs.

You should try researching relics from the patron Saint of dentists, that is really good for a laugh. The source for the arrest warrant was not "some guy in the pub" it was a serious documentary on the history of Christianity. It quoted the warrant in its original latin, and provided the translation. Problem is it was broadcast about 20 years ago so I cannot remember all of the details.


Have you ever wondered what people would be wearing around their necks if Jesus had be executed by some other means...say for example by guillotine?The cross strikes lots of chords with the Human psyche, think of Thor's hammer as a popular religious amulet.

John Smith
04-11-2009, 06:35 AM
I am not a religious person - very far from it. But the ignorance in this statement is too much to pass up. The period referred to as 'the dark ages' is the period following the collapse of the western Roman empire up until about the year 1100 AD, give or take a century - some may argue about 1400 AD. This was an age when Europe was overrun by several tribal invasions, such as by the Vandals, Goths, and Huns. The Black Plague made several incursions.

Rail against the church as much as you like and you can be fully justified for it, but the church formed the communal network of the time. Monks in Ireland preserved much of the learning that was lost after the collapse of Rome. When the political structures advanced enough that the knowledge could again be made available the seeds were planted that led to the Renaissance.
You are correct. My apologizes.

Let me rephrase. Religion is generally living in the dark, to my mind. Huge impediment to truth and the development of scientific knowledge.

"Masterbation will cause hairy palms." Remember that one?

dm_scott
04-11-2009, 07:13 AM
Yup, church saved Ireland from falling into ruin that's for sure, they brought in the English to help, especially the Northern part, lol.

Pope Adrian IV (1100?-1159)
Roman Catholic Pope (1154-1159), the only Englishman to attain the papacy

"It is not doubted, and you know it, that Ireland and all those islands which have received the faith, belong to the Church of Rome; if you wish to enter that Island, to drive vice out of it, to cause law to be obeyed and St Peter's Pence to be paid by every house, it will please us to assign it to you."
-- Pope Adrian IV, in a letter to King Henry II, presuming to own even Ireland that he would "assign" it to the King of England, in Lloyd M Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

Peerie Maa
04-11-2009, 07:27 AM
Yup, church saved Ireland from falling into ruin that's for sure, they brought in the English to help, especially the Northern part, lol.

Pope Adrian IV (1100?-1159)
Roman Catholic Pope (1154-1159), the only Englishman to attain the papacy

"It is not doubted, and you know it, that Ireland and all those islands which have received the faith, belong to the Church of Rome; if you wish to enter that Island, to drive vice out of it, to cause law to be obeyed and St Peter's Pence to be paid by every house, it will please us to assign it to you."
-- Pope Adrian IV, in a letter to King Henry II, presuming to own even Ireland that he would "assign" it to the King of England, in Lloyd M Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

That is a bit skewed, your dates don't add up. The first Norman lord, de Roche did not arrive in Ireland until 1167. Quote Wiki:

After losing the protection of Tír Eoghain (Tyrone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone)) Chief, Muircheartach Mac Lochlainn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muircheartach_Mac_Lochlainn), High King of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_King_of_Ireland), who died in 1166, Dermot MacMurrough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_MacMurrough) (Irish Diarmaid Mac Murchada) , was forcibly exiled by a confederation of Irish forces under the new High King, Ruaidhrí Ó Conchobhair.
Diarmaid fled first to Bristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol) and then to Normandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy). He sought and obtained permission from Henry II of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_England) to use the latter's subjects to regain his kingdom. By 1167 MacMurrough had obtained the services of Maurice Fitz Gerald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_FitzGerald,_Lord_of_Lanstephan) and later persuaded Rhŷs ap Gruffydd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh%C5%B7s_ap_Gruffydd) Prince of Deheubarth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deheubarth) to release Maurice's half-brother Robert Fitz-Stephen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fitz-Stephen) from captivity to take part in the expedition. Most importantly he obtained the support of Cambro- Norman Marcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcher) Lord Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_Clare,_2nd_Earl_of_Pembroke) known as Strongbow.
The first Norman knight to land in Ireland was Richard fitz Godbert de Roche in 1167, but it was not until 1169 that the main forces of Normans, along with their mercenaries which consisted of Welsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales) and Flemings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders) landed in Loch Garman Wexford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Wexford).

dm_scott
04-11-2009, 09:15 AM
Not sure what is skewed, as wiki seems to show that the papel bull came first, Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland second, don't see any conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_invasion_of_Ireland

"Pope Adrian IV, the only English pope, in one of his earliest acts, had already issued a Papal Bull in 1155, giving Henry authority to invade Ireland as a means of curbing ecclesiastical corruption and abuses."

"Pope Alexander III ratified the grant of Ireland to Henry in 1172, and it was approved by all the Irish bishops at the synod of Cashel."

"Henry was happily acknowledged by most of the Irish Kings, who saw in him a chance to curb the expansion of both Leinster and the Hiberno-Normans. This led to the ratification of the Treaty of Windsor in 1175 between Henry and Ruaidhrí."

But I would bet that he might have been busy, that is post "bull"/pre invasion.

# 1154

* 25 October - King Stephen dies and is succeeded by Henry II, the first Plantagenet king of England.[2]
* 4 December - Pope Adrian IV elected, the only English Pope.[2]
* December - Coronation of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.[1]
* The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle completed.[2]
* Henry of Huntingdon completes his Historia Anglorum.[1]

# 1155

* January - Henry II appoints Thomas Becket as Lord Chancellor.[2]
* Henry defeats rebellious barons, reclaims many royal castles, and abolishes the Earldoms of York and Hereford.[1]
* Pope Adrian IV issues the papal bull Laudabiliter giving Henry II lordship over Ireland.[1]

# 1156

* 5 February - Henry pays homage to Louis VII of France to secure his titles over Normandy, Aquitaine, and Anjou.[1]
* Henry suppresses a revolt by his brother Geoffrey in Anjou, and grants him the title Count of Nantes in return for securing peace.[1]

# 1157

* May - Henry II demands the return of Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland from Malcolm IV of Scotland;[2] in return Malcolm is given the title Earl of Huntingdon.[1]
* Summer - Henry II launches a campaign for overlordship of Wales.[3]
* July - Owain of Gwynedd submits to Henry and pays homage.[1]
* Henry II grants special trading privileges to the Hansa merchants of Cologne.[2]

# 1158

* Summer - Henry II leaves for Normandy; he does not return to England until 1163.[3]
* August - Henry agrees a treaty with Louis VII of France; Henry's son Henry the Young King to marry Louis' daughter Marguerite, in return for control of parts of Vexin.[1]
* Conan IV, Duke of Brittany pays homage to Henry II.[1]

# 1159

* Henry besieges Toulouse to claim it as part of Aquitaine, but is forced to abandon the campaign.[1]
* John of Salisbury completes his works Metalogicon and Polycraticus.[1]

# 1160

* 2 November - Marriage of Henry the Young King and Marguerite, daughter of Louis VII of France; King Henry II takes control of Norman Vexin.[1]

# 1161

* Canonisation of Edward the Confessor.[1]

# 1162

* 3 June - Thomas Becket consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury and resigns as Lord Chancellor.[2]
* Becket decrees that Trinity Sunday should henceforth be celebrated in England.[1]
* King Henry II raises the Danegeld (by now, merely a royal tax) for the last time.[2]

# 1163

* January - Henry II suppresses a revolt in Wales, and captures Prince Rhys ap Gruffydd.[1]
* 1 July - Henry calls the Welsh princes and King Malcolm IV of Scotland to do homage at Woodstock Palace; the Welsh rebel.[1]
* 1 October - Becket resists Henry II's demands to extend the jurisdiction of secular courts to the clergy.[2]
* 13 October - The bones of Edward the Confessor are translated to Westminster Abbey.[1]
* John of Salisbury completes his Life of Anselm.[1]

# 1164

* January - Henry II enacts the Constitutions of Clarendon in an attempt to exert power over the church.[2]
* 2 November - Becket found guilty of contempt of court and exiled to France.[2]

# 1165

* July - Henry II fails to quell a rebellion in Wales.[2]

# 1166

* Henry II enacts the Assize of Clarendon, reforming the law and defining the legal duties of sheriffs.[2]
* July - Henry conquers Brittany, granting the territory to his son Geoffrey.[1]

# 1167

* The exiled former King of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough, pays homage to Henry, and recruits support for an invasion of Ireland.[1]

Peerie Maa
04-11-2009, 09:41 AM
I think that the Irish kings would not have taken much notice of a bull by an English Pope in favour of an English King, designed to sort out Church corruption. The mistake made, similar to the one made by the Scots, was to invite the greedy and warlike Norman line in to resolve a dispute between two small kingdoms. Who can say, if those two kings had not fallen out it might have been centuries more before England needed to colonise Ireland in order to secure English borders, if at all.

marshcat
04-11-2009, 09:52 AM
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:03 AM
I believe the time when religion ran the world is what we now refer to as the "dark" ages. Religious beliefs block honest scientific developments.

As you are trying to point out, John, belief and knowledge are 2 different things. We all have beliefs, and the more they are based on knowledge, the stronger we hold to them.

However, your belief re religious beliefs blocking scientific development is not based on actuality. You have made an assumption, an uniformed, poor one, and your prejudice and biased assumptions, not the rigor of your research, are now on display.

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:04 AM
Sounds bit like all the relics of the cross, apparently there's enough wood fragments to build several crosses and enough nails to nail up quite few messiahs.

Yes, crucifixion was the Roman's preferred method of execution, wasn't it. Sometimes, thousands at a time, to quell the uprisings in the empire. Your point?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-11-2009, 10:09 AM
....
However, your belief re religious beliefs blocking scientific development is not based on actuality. You have made an assumption, an uniformed, poor one, and your prejudice and biased assumptions, not the rigor of your research, are now on display.

In times of trouble a personal insult is often useful.

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:10 AM
... a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.
-- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man p. 122

Often true, yet, not consistently. All worldviews are inculcated early as it is impossible to live without one.....theistic ones, atheistic ones, naturalistic ones, materialistic ones....they're all picked up early.

When we are older, some people start to examine their assumptions, start to inquire, to examine new ideas they come across. Some are willing to follow the data wherever it may lead them - some not, because of a priori views. Many, many people ditch what was "inculcated early". I don't think Darwin's view holds.

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:13 AM
I heard years ago that a copy of the arrest warrant for Christ survived somewhere, so there is no real doubt that he ended up nailed to a baulk of timber.


I am not aware that 'arrest warrants' were used by the Sanhedrin, or Romans, in the first century, i.e. I've never come across anything to that effect in all my reading.

However, there is plenty of other evidence for the last half of your comment.

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:14 AM
How can you be alive "post" death, or is this something to do with the soul which we can't see either?

Only one possible way, right Herby?

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:17 AM
Good one, Marchcat ;)

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:21 AM
In times of trouble a personal insult is often useful.

Apologies. :o

But the uninformed views thrown out as fact just gets sooo tiresome, pisn. :(

However, you are right. I shall try to remain patient...

Again, apologies.

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 10:31 AM
... it works BOTH ways.

Of course. Where did I say otherwise?

Tinman
04-11-2009, 12:27 PM
This whole exersize about the debate between creation/evolution is really pointless in my mind. As a Christian myself, I frankly don't care one way or the other. If God used evolution, fine, If he did it all in 6 calendar days, fine. I've never understood why this is such a passionate debate. As a Priest friend of mine told me once:

"I'll admit to the big Bang, if you admit that God lit the fuse"

Works for me.

Glen Longino
04-11-2009, 07:40 PM
This whole exersize about the debate between creation/evolution is really pointless in my mind. As a Christian myself, I frankly don't care one way or the other. If God used evolution, fine, If he did it all in 6 calendar days, fine. I've never understood why this is such a passionate debate. As a Priest friend of mine told me once:

"I'll admit to the big Bang, if you admit that God lit the fuse"

Works for me.

Of course this whole "exersize" is really pointless in your mind.
As a Christian yourself, you frankly are already committed to your own delusion, and don't need to know any finer details, such as "reality".
Your "Priest friend" is an idiot, if in fact he exists.
"lit the fuse", my arse!

PeterSibley
04-11-2009, 08:17 PM
Have you ever wondered what people would be wearing around their necks if Jesus had be executed by some other means...say for example by guillotine?
I wish that he had , crucification must have been a diabolical thing ! I shudder to think the reality of having nails driven through my ankles and wrists .

The guillotine was a quick and merciful invention .:(

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 08:42 PM
I wish that he had , crucification must have been a diabolical thing ! I shudder to think the reality of having nails driven through my ankles and wrists .

The guillotine was a quick and merciful invention .:(

And beyond the initial nailing was a slow, agonizing death by asphyxiation, often while birds feasted on your unprotected eyes...

This is a good weekend to watch Gibson's "Passion of the Christ", regardless of one's position on the resurrection.

Keith Wilson
04-11-2009, 08:46 PM
If God used evolution, fine, If he did it all in 6 calendar days, fine. Now this is an uncommonly reasonable attitude from a conservative Christian. Personally I think it's amazing hubris to try and tell God how to work. If God's there, or if he isn't, all we can do is look around and see how things work and what happened - and all the evidence points toward evolution. This tells us precisely nothing about whether or not God had anything to do with it. Of course, many folks are looking for God's fingerprints on creation, empirical evidence of his handiwork - something he hasn't seen fit to give us much of, if any.
This is a good weekend to watch Gibson's "Passion of the Christ"IMHO, there is never a good time to watch that film. I'm not into torture porn, thank you very much.

Tom Montgomery
04-11-2009, 08:48 PM
I'm really not interested in 2-plus hours of a gratuitously graphic depiction of a man being tortured to death. It strikes me as pornographic. A movie about pagan Vikings depicting a realistic and graphic depiction of the "bloody eagle" would be condemned. I'm not into graphic depictions of self-mortification, either.

Tinman
04-11-2009, 09:00 PM
Of course this whole "exersize" is really pointless in your mind.
As a Christian yourself, you frankly are already committed to your own delusion, and don't need to know any finer details, such as "reality".
Your "Priest friend" is an idiot, if in fact he exists.
"lit the fuse", my arse!

So let me get this straight. I say this whole thing is pointless and no big deal, qoute a friend who happens to be a Priest that says a mildly amusing comment that puts things into perspective, you deride both of us for believing in something that can neither be proved or disproved, and on top of that, call a man you have never met, don't know anything about, an idiot? This is your idea of rational thinking and resoned debate? you are right there is an idiot here, but it isn't from this side of the isle. Check the mirror for the source of the idiocy, then get counselling.

Glen Longino
04-11-2009, 09:28 PM
So let me get this straight. I say this whole thing is pointless and no big deal, qoute a friend who happens to be a Priest that says a mildly amusing comment that puts things into perspective, you deride both of us for believing in something that can neither be proved or disproved, and on top of that, call a man you have never met, don't know anything about, an idiot? This is your idea of rational thinking and resoned debate? you are right there is an idiot here, but it isn't from this side of the isle. Check the mirror for the source of the idiocy, then get counselling.

It is Not pointless! It Is a big deal to billions of religious people.
Your Priest friend's brainless comment put nothing whatsoever into perspective.
This is not a debate on this side of the "isle" Tinner! It's a conversation. You don't get to make the rules here.:)

Nanoose
04-11-2009, 09:29 PM
Proponents of naturalistic evolution lack a basis of belief for what they hold to be true.

We assume human reasoning is reliable, that it is there to furnish us with true beliefs.

Naturalists believe we are the product of evolution in a closed system i.e. we and our cognitive abilities exist after billions of years of natural selection and random genetic mutation.

Accordingly, our cognitive abilities care nothing about true belief, but survival via adaptive behavior. On this foundational understanding of evolution, evolution cannot speak to/guarantee that our thinking processes or beliefs are true i.e. our behavior could be adaptive to promote survival while our cognitive ability and beliefs are false.

The very point in question is, whether reasoning may be trusted, and even Darwin noted and was concerned: "With me," says Darwin, “the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-16.)

WX
04-11-2009, 09:33 PM
Yes, crucifixion was the Roman's preferred method of execution, wasn't it. Sometimes, thousands at a time, to quell the uprisings in the empire. Your point? http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2161668)
One upon a time Christians used the fish symbol, then for some reason they started using the cross. As you say the cross is a form of slow execution. Don't you find it strange that we symbolize a man who preached peace and goodwill to all with a rather hideous form of execution?
Think about it.

Tinman
04-11-2009, 09:37 PM
It is Not pointless! It Is a big deal to billions of religious people.
Your Priest friend's brainless comment put nothing whatsoever into perspective.
This is not a debate on this side of the "isle" Tinner! It's a conversation. You don't get to make the rules here.:)

Ok, let me be more specific. I don't understand why it is a big deal. It shouldn't be. The comment by my friend put it in perspective for me. Happy now?

Glen Longino
04-11-2009, 09:46 PM
Ok, let me be more specific. I don't understand why it is a big deal. It shouldn't be. The comment by my friend put it in perspective for me. Happy now?

Yes! Thanks!

Peerie Maa
04-12-2009, 07:56 AM
Of course this whole "exersize" is really pointless in your mind.
As a Christian yourself, you frankly are already committed to your own delusion, and don't need to know any finer details, such as "reality".
Your "Priest friend" is an idiot, if in fact he exists.
"lit the fuse", my arse!

In this instance I tend to agree with Tinny. Lighting the fuse that set off the Big Bang is to me an acceptable role for Tinny's God. It is about the only role left for a Creator in some peoples world view. In a sense it fits into my agnosticism 'cos it is one area where it is possible for a "God" to exist. I do not believe that She does, but it is possible.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 09:04 AM
There have been a few. Honda Shadow was one; a nice guy but definitely a biblical literalism, six days and all. SamF claims to be "agnostic" on the subject, but will argue to the death against it.
Ah no. You apparently missed a crucial point.
I'm an agnostic about evolution - or at least how it worked.
I'm not the least bit agnostic about Darwin. Based on the available evidence, he was wrong. That conclusion will remain until presented with actual evidence, instead of what we have been presented with... which is a philosophy disguised as science

Tom Montgomery
04-12-2009, 09:11 AM
Mission Accomplished!

John Smith
04-12-2009, 09:25 AM
Ah no. You apparently missed a crucial point.
I'm an agnostic about evolution - or at least how it worked.
I'm not the least bit agnostic about Darwin. Based on the available evidence, he was wrong. That conclusion will remain until presented with actual evidence, instead of what we have been presented with... which is a philosophy disguised as science
How, then, do you explain the mosquito becoming immune to DDT, unless it's an evolving of that particular insect.

That, alone, is far more evidence than the "God created us" people have. No?

Sam F
04-12-2009, 09:42 AM
Originally Posted by John Smith
I believe the time when religion ran the world is what we now refer to as the "dark" ages. Religious beliefs block honest scientific developments.


I am not a religious person - very far from it. But the ignorance in this statement is too much to pass up.

Yes that is remarkable. Ironically, Nanoose was taken to task for "insults", but really a more legitimate charge ought to have been that it was a blunt statement. Blunt isn't nice, but then spreading abject ignorance paraded as “fact” isn’t nice either.


The period referred to as 'the dark ages' is the period following the collapse of the western Roman empire up until about the year 1100 AD, give or take a century - some may argue about 1400 AD. This was an age when Europe was overrun by several tribal invasions, such as by the Vandals, Goths, and Huns. The Black Plague made several incursions.

If I may make a gentle correction... the very term "Dark Ages" is at least partially a myth. It was first coined as a criticism of late Latin literature and later expanded to suit other purposes. Some of those were for the purpose of religious slander and later for ideological reasons. (See quote above for an example.) True, things were dark enough to suit the most barbarous barbarian after the western Roman Empire shuddered to a collapse (see the attitudes portrayed in Beowolf - "older is better" - for instance) but civilization was definitely on the upswing by 1000 AD


Rail against the church as much as you like and you can be fully justified for it, but the church formed the communal network of the time.
If I may... your own arguments contradicts anyone being "fully justified" for such criticism. It is quite correct that...


Monks in Ireland preserved much of the learning that was lost after the collapse of Rome. When the political structures advanced enough that the knowledge could again be made available the seeds were planted that led to the Renaissance.

That’s substantially correct except that the Middle Ages (an artificial construct in the first place) nurtured advances on every cultural front and were much more than a door mat for the Renaissance. Were it not for the Church's role in preserving civilization virtually the entire corpus of Latin literature, literacy, culture and history would have been lost.

oznabrag
04-12-2009, 10:03 AM
It is Not pointless! It Is a big deal to billions of religious people.
Your Priest friend's brainless comment put nothing whatsoever into perspective.
This is not a debate on this side of the "isle" Tinner! It's a conversation. You don't get to make the rules here.:)


Looks to me like Tinman's original post stated pretty clearly that he doesn't have strong feelings about the issue either way. That he has reconciled any mutual exclusivity of the 'theories' (for lack of a better word) and has reconciled them effortlessly by applying his faith in his God.

Maybe I am being naive, but, to me, Tinman's original post came across as expressing a puzzlement about why it is such a big deal that arguing about it can be a person's life work.

My answer is that, somewhere along the line, a capacity for religious belief became a preferred genetic trait.

Happy Easter!

John T

Sam F
04-12-2009, 10:06 AM
How, then, do you explain the mosquito becoming immune to DDT, unless it's an evolving of that particular insect.
I was under the distinct impression that Darwin's book was entitled: "The Origin of Species".
Did any mosquito that developed resistance to any pesticide ever evolve into a new species?
No.


That, alone, is far more evidence than the "God created us" people have. No?

Well, it would be if it were so. But, unless you can provide any examples of a new mosquito species evolving, we have just demonstrated that it's not so. Therefore, the answer is: No.

Remember Darwin didn't set out to prove that "like begats like". Everyone already knows that. Even the ignorant pre-historic illiterate proto-agriculturalists who developed our major food crops knew that.
Darwin's "insight" is that: like begats unlike.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 10:17 AM
Ok, let me be more specific. I don't understand why it is a big deal. It shouldn't be. The comment by my friend put it in perspective for me. Happy now?

Evolution isn't necessarily a big deal for any Theist. God, being omnipotent, could have created life anyway He saw fit - including Evolution. For us, it's sweating the small stuff.
Here's why it's such a big deal to anti-theists:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

Thus Darwinian Materialist Evolution is The Creed of today's Atheists.
Attack Evolution and you've attacked Atheist Faith.
No wonder they get upset.
Poor things! For people who demand empirical proof, Darwin's Evolution is not even as verifiable as the Apostle’s creed.

dm_scott
04-12-2009, 10:20 AM
Funny, I used to think I was a christian, till my mother and 2nd husband told me I was not (they would know right, both born again, missionary work to Mexico, cut members of you family out of your life for their "life style choices", have more face time with orphans in Mexico than your own grandkids, etc...).

So I actually looked at what being a "christian" meant and the history behind it, no surprise that I don't think that I'm a christian anymore.

Of course I don't think most christians actually read the bible and the history of their church and question what they read, they get the pre-digested version from the local pastor/padre. He/she skips over the hard parts to explain, such as just what were lot and his daughters doing after mom turned into a pillar of salt, how much kinetic energy would be required to stop the sun at mid day, how much rain would have to fall to flood the planet, and where would it go once the planet was flooded, what purpose did god have in getting the bears to slaughter the children who teased elisha? etc, etc, etc....

But I guess my biggest questions are reserved for the clergy, who received an education and know that:

1. The entire bible is saturated with common mythological themes, from the creation and flood myth to virgin birth and resurrected hero mythology.

2. The stories of the patriarchs in the old testament are known as 'temple legends' to enhance the history of the hebrew people and are mostly fictional.

3. The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

4. The 'christ' myths and formulas are direct copies of zoroastrian myths adopted by the jesus sect.

5. The dates for christian celebrations were chosen for convenience, to match existing celebrations already in place, or to not get confused with other religious celebrations, such as passover.

But they just keep on peddling the same old stuff, cause that's what brings people in.

It being easter, here is a quiz for the christians, don't think any of you can correctly answer the questions, but the answers are all in the bible.

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=282

So, should I go rob a bank now?

PS. Could you point me to the "Ten Commandments" while you are looking about? Not the goat sacrificing stuff, the real stuff.

oznabrag
04-12-2009, 10:21 AM
In this instance I tend to agree with Tinny. Lighting the fuse that set off the Big Bang is to me an acceptable role for Tinny's God. It is about the only role left for a Creator in some peoples world view. In a sense it fits into my agnosticism 'cos it is one area where it is possible for a "God" to exist. I do not believe that She does, but it is possible.

I agree that Tinman has an inoffensive, harmless stance on the lighting of the fuse thing.

I think the problems start to arise when one begins assigning motives to the anthropomorphic Lighter Of The Fuse. What, you don't believe me? Watch this:

"For all we know, the observable cosmos may simply represent what happens when god farts."

Personally, I believe that religion is genetic, and that it is designed to let us know who is 'other' enough to shun or enslave or deprive or butcher, while allowing us to avoid the prick of conscience...

Speak of the devil, here comes the prick now!!

John T

Sam F
04-12-2009, 10:22 AM
I've got a huge meal coming up and I'm in training for the event... :D
I hear there are 3 (three!) pies ahead too!
So y'all have a great Easter celebration.
Remember, Jesus died to provide you with eternal life.
What a great deal! It's there for the asking!
God bless.
You too Glen!!!

Sam F
04-12-2009, 10:25 AM
...Personally, I believe that religion is genetic, and that it is designed to let us know who is 'other' enough to shun or enslave or deprive or butcher, while allowing us to avoid the prick of conscience...
John T

Too good to pass up! Don't you want to reword that?
The word "designed" has no place in Evolution. ;)

oznabrag
04-12-2009, 10:27 AM
:D:D:D

John Smith
04-12-2009, 10:32 AM
I was under the distinct impression that Darwin's book was entitled: "The Origin of Species".
Did any mosquito that developed resistance to any pesticide ever evolve into a new species?
No.



Well, it would be if it were so. But, unless you can provide any examples of a new mosquito species evolving, we have just demonstrated that it's not so. Therefore, the answer is: No.

Remember Darwin didn't set out to prove that "like begats like". Everyone already knows that. Even the ignorant pre-historic illiterate proto-agriculturalists who developed our major food crops knew that.
Darwin's "insight" is that: like begats unlike.
Regardless of the title of the book, the theory is that living things evolve, no? Did not the mosquito evolve to be immune from DDT.

Please address that.

John Smith
04-12-2009, 10:38 AM
Evolution isn't necessarily a big deal for any Theist. God, being omnipotent, could have created life anyway He saw fit - including Evolution. For us, it's sweating the small stuff.
Here's why it's such a big deal to anti-theists:
(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

Thus Darwinian Materialist Evolution is The Creed of today's Atheists.
Attack Evolution and you've attacked Atheist Faith.
No wonder they get upset.
Poor things! For people who demand empirical proof, Darwin's Evolution is not even as verifiable as the Apostle’s creed.
Just as a point of clarification, and speaking only for myself, God is no explanation at all. God is simply a word to cover what we, admittedly, don't know.

Again, speaking for myself, I am quite content to say, "I don't know how we got here." I also don't see why it matters.

If we were stranded on an island, would it matter if it was due to a boat sinking or a plane crashing?

John Smith
04-12-2009, 10:45 AM
This is what bothers me in this arena:

http://www.dinosaurhome.com/paleontology-chapter-removed-from-kansas-history-textbook-55422.html

Glen Longino
04-12-2009, 10:50 AM
I've got a huge meal coming up and I'm in training for the event... :D
I hear there are 3 (three!) pies ahead too!
So y'all have a great Easter celebration.
Remember, Jesus died to provide you with eternal life.
What a great deal! It's there for the asking!
God bless.
You too Glen!!!

Welcome back, Sam!
Thanks for the kind thoughts!

Sam F
04-12-2009, 10:51 AM
Regardless of the title of the book, the theory is that living things evolve, no? Did not the mosquito evolve to be immune from DDT.

Please address that.

In Christianity, the idea of things evolving dates back to at least to the Roman St Augustine.
The general concept is even older.
But I rather doubt that's what Dawin had in mind. The concept of evolution has always been more than just the "Origin of Species".
Unfortunately, that's exactly what Darwin sought to explain - the Origin of Species.
So, if you support Darwin, you're pretty much stuck with it.
Since it is a fact that no new species has been observed to have evolved from contact with any pesticide, it would seem that the issue has been well addressed. No new species = No observed Evolution of Species.

Keith Wilson
04-12-2009, 10:55 AM
Proponents of naturalistic evolution lack a basis of belief for what they hold to be true. We assume human reasoning is reliable, that it is there to furnish us with true beliefs.Naturalists believe we are the product of evolution in a closed system i.e. we and our cognitive abilities exist after billions of years of natural selection and random genetic mutation.

Accordingly, our cognitive abilities care nothing about true belief, but survival via adaptive behavior. On this foundational understanding of evolution, evolution cannot speak to/guarantee that our thinking processes or beliefs are true i.e. our behavior could be adaptive to promote survival while our cognitive ability and beliefs are falseThere is an enormous difference between "speak to" and "guarantee", and it's a rhetorical trick of the sort you don't normally use to equate them. Certain knowledge is only possible within closed systems like geometry; for everything else, it's "to the best of our knowledge". "Guarantee", no way. Tell us something useful about, definitively

This also assumes that knowing accurately about what's around us is of no survival value. This is obviously false. Survival requires finding food and water and avoiding danger. Accurate knowledge is very, very helpful for all three. Consider the increase of human population since the triumph of empirical science; while we may still screw it up, that is obviously a behavior that has great survival value. OTOH this also means that our cognitive abilities have limits. We have limited information and we aren't that bright, and we're not very good at figuring out, say, the meaning and purpose of the universe.

Sam doesn't like the idea that one can no longer use rationally use natural theology, Paley's watchmaker, as a compelling argument for the existence of God. This line argument was very important in the Anglo-American Protestant tradition for a long time (less so among Catholics); evolution has badly damaged its credibility. The fact the the physical universe can be explained just as well without any reference to God really bugs some people. Convinced atheists like Dawkins et al love rubbing people's noses in the fact.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 10:55 AM
Just as a point of clarification, and speaking only for myself, God is no explanation at all. God is simply a word to cover what we, admittedly, don't know.

Again, speaking for myself, I am quite content to say, "I don't know how we got here." I also don't see why it matters.

If we were stranded on an island, would it matter if it was due to a boat sinking or a plane crashing?

"I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied"

Tom Montgomery
04-12-2009, 11:06 AM
Now that Sammy has arrived I predict that:
1) This thread will run to at least 10 pages.
2) Nothing new will be discussed.
3) It will end with the usual acrimonious complaints about Sammy's attitude and behavior.

Keith Wilson
04-12-2009, 11:08 AM
"I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied"And that's one reason some folks have traditional religious beliefs and some don't. Personally I think that when figuring out what we know and what we don't, whether a proposed answer is "satisfying" doesn't deserve much weight. Some things we know, some things we don't. Whether we are satisfied or bothered by it doesn't change the facts.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 11:51 AM
... Survival requires finding food and water and avoiding danger. Accurate knowledge is very, very helpful for all three.

The same is true in following and responding to an argument. It's essential to be aware of and respond to the reality of the situation.
Here's an example of how it doesn't work to miss the lay of the land so to speak:


... Sam doesn't like the idea that one can no longer use rationally use natural theology, Paley's watchmaker, as a compelling argument for the existence of God.

Keith doesn't realize that the natural theology is a subset of the cosmological argument which St Paul articulated so well when he said:
“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20).
As it happens, that argument is alive and well.


... This line argument was very important in the Anglo-American Protestant tradition for a long time (less so among Catholics); evolution has badly damaged its credibility.

Keith isn't aware of Thomas Aquinas' use of the cosmological argument.
St Thomas is rather important in Catholic theology.



... The fact the the physical universe can be explained just as well without any reference to God really bugs some people. Convinced atheists like Dawkins et al love rubbing people's noses in the fact.

The fact is that Dawkins' (and your) Materialism (i.e. Theological Naturalism) does not explain the world very well at all. It does a much worse job of accounting for the reality of experience than orthodox Christian theology. Naturally Secularists don't enjoy having their noses rubbed in that fact very much. They say it isn't "nice".

Peerie Maa
04-12-2009, 11:54 AM
In Christianity, the idea of things evolving dates back to at least to the Roman St Augustine.
The general concept is even older.
But I rather doubt that's what Dawin had in mind. The concept of evolution has always been more than just the "Origin of Species".
Unfortunately, that's exactly what Darwin sought to explain - the Origin of Species.
So, if you support Darwin, you're pretty much stuck with it.
Since it is a fact that no new species has been observed to have evolved from contact with any pesticide, it would seem that the issue has been well addressed. No new species = No observed Evolution of Species.

Sam, You come across as incredibly impatient, evolution into other species takes time, and/or geographical seperation. However the mechanism that causes immunity in mozzys is one of the mechanisms that drives evolution, and the fact that mozzys, superbugs et al have developed resistance shows that evolution has passed another test of its validity.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 12:04 PM
Sam, You come across as incredibly impatient, evolution into other species takes time, and/or geographical seperation. However the mechanism that causes immunity in mozzys is one of the mechanisms that drives evolution, and the fact that mozzys, superbugs et al have developed resistance shows that evolution has passed another test of its validity.

Sir you come across as incredibly... well... let's just say you've missed the point.
I'm still patiently waiting for a new species of mosquito. Until then, you've got a great just-so story. But if we're going to experience the triumph of empiricism, we'll have to see one of those new species first.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 12:14 PM
One upon a time Christians used the fish symbol, then for some reason they started using the cross. As you say the cross is a form of slow execution. Don't you find it strange that we symbolize a man who preached peace and goodwill to all with a rather hideous form of execution?
Think about it.
Catholics do more than just think about it.
You can see a fairly graphic depiction of this hideous execution in most Catholic Churches. You're supposed to keep in in mind.

http://www.artsjournal.com/man/terBrugghenCrucifix.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
04-12-2009, 12:18 PM
Sam aren't you supposed to be off today ?

oznabrag
04-12-2009, 12:19 PM
Sam aren't you supposed to be off today ?

Sam's a little bit off every day.

Peerie Maa
04-12-2009, 12:22 PM
Sir you come across as incredibly... well... let's just say you've missed the point.
I'm still patiently waiting for a new species of mosquito. Until then, you've got a great just-so story. But if we're going to experience the triumph of empiricism, we'll have to see one of those new species first.

Why specifically mozzys?
There are plenty of other new species, lets consider them.
Look at Lonely George here
The Galapagos Tortoise (Testundinidae): You can't go to these islands without falling in love with these funny, pre-historic creatures. All turtles found on the islands belong to the group Geochelone elephantopus. They are divided into 14 sub-species (three of which are extinct), differentiated by the form and size of their shell as well as neck and extremities. Unfortunately, if they don't find a mate for Lonely George soon, there might be 4 extinct species. from here:http://www.galapaguide.com/islas_galapagos_fauna.htm. This discussion considers the age of the Galapagos which sets the timescale for the evolution of the Galapagos species.
Potassium-argon dating of the volcanic rocks puts the islands' ages between about 1 million (western islands) and 4 million (eastern islands) years. Past paleontology studies, however, suggested a much older age of 10 to 14 million years--a suggestion that caught on in the biological community, says Carole S. Hickman, a paleontologist at the University of California at Berkeley. Now Hickman and geologist Jere H. Lipps at U.C. Davis have reconciled the paleontologic age with the geologic evidence.
In the March 29 SCIENCE, the researchers conclude that the western islands emerged from the sea less than 2 million years ago and that the eastern islands rose at least 3 million years ago. They base their conclusions on the first complete survey of marine fossils found in six different settings. The researchers arrived at relatively young dates, they say, because they paid more attention to how the settings formed than did previous workers. "We found we were dealing primarily with species that are still alive today,' says Hickman.
A 4-million-year divergence time agrees with most biochemical studies, which indicate, for example, that the 13 finch species on the islands could have come from one species in 1 million years. The one exception is the iguana. Biochemical evidence says that the land and aquatic forms of the iguana diverged in 15 to 20 million years. The new findings suggest that these two species had diverged before they arrived at the islands. from:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v127/ai_3727665/

Seems to me that new species have arisen in plenty, over a quantifiable time frame.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 12:23 PM
Why specifically mozzys?

I didn't specifly them.


Look at Lonely George here...

So? Another great just-so story. Let's see the thing actually happen.
Lots and lots of species go through way more generations in a year than those tortoses do in a 10,000. Pick one that has been observed to evolve into another species.

Joe (SoCal)
04-12-2009, 12:30 PM
Sam's a little bit off every day.

Back back back in your pew SamF. The power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you. :p

Keith Wilson
04-12-2009, 12:34 PM
Sam missed my point completely. I said that the "watchmaker" argument was relatively more important in Anglo-American protestant theology, not that it was nonexistent in Catholicism. It has been around a very long time, longer than Christianity, in fact, and certainly exists in Catholic theology, where it's merely less central.
It does a much worse job of accounting for the reality of experience than orthodox Christian theology.Well, we obviously disagree on this point. I think this statement is complete nonsense.

However, Sam and I have been over this ground many times before, and I don't care to do it again. Sam will now perform his patented victory strut about how my ideas can't stand up to the Holy Light of the One True Faith.

Peerie Maa
04-12-2009, 12:37 PM
I didn't specifly them.



So? Another great just-so story. Let's see the thing actually happen.
Lots and lots of species go through way more generations in a year than those tortoses do in a 10,000. Pick one that has been observed to evolve into another species.
Sam you know full well that none of the scientific community claims that it can happen that quick. The source I quoted mentioned million years. Now stop being disrespectful of the people that you want to play with.:(

dm_scott
04-12-2009, 12:53 PM
Butterflies, bananas and islands, oh my....

http://www.kolbecenter.org/fishwick_bio_lessons.html

Keith Wilson
04-12-2009, 12:53 PM
Now stop being disrespectful of the people that you want to play with.The expression "a cold day in hell" may apply here. Sam has said that people have to earn his respect by living up to his standards. Oddly, no one who disagrees with him has managed to do this yet.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 12:54 PM
Sam missed my point completely. I said that the "watchmaker" argument was relatively more important in Anglo-American protestant theology, not that it was nonexistent in Catholicism.

My point stated, I think, quite explicitly is that the "watchmaker" argument is alive and well. Didn't you know?

Explaining reality...

Well, we obviously disagree on this point. I think this statement is complete nonsense.

Keith, to effectively respond to the reality of another's argument one needs to understand it.
You clearly don't


However, Sam and I have been over this ground many times before, and I don't care to do it again. Sam will now perform his patented victory strut about how my ideas can't stand up to the Holy Light of the One True Faith.

That's not nice Keith. I thought you believed in "nice".
However, one can't help but wonder at your other point; if you can't respond effectively to a… oh, for example… a 2000 year-old "utterly outmoded and obsolete" argument, why is it incumbent on me not to notice?

Sam F
04-12-2009, 12:59 PM
Sam you know full well that none of the scientific community claims that it can happen that quick. The source I quoted mentioned million years. Now stop being disrespectful of the people that you want to play with.:(

Excuse me?
Since when has mere time anything to do with it? Time is, in this sense, strictly relative. It's the number of generations that count - that is - the speed at which an organism goes through its life-cycle.
There are a few organisms that in recorded history have gone through more generations than all large mammalian species combined in their entire history on earth. That's quite time enough for the evolution of a new species or three.
So show me a new species that has been observed to evolve.

Keith Wilson
04-12-2009, 01:00 PM
My point stated, I think, quite explicitly is that the "watchmaker" argument is alive and well. People still use it; I suppose that makes it "alive"? People will probably use gaps in human knowledge as evidence for God as long as human knowledge of the world is incomplete, i.e. as long as our species lasts. That doesn't mean it's a valid argument.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 01:01 PM
How about and end to the just-so stories? If you don't have the actual empirical evidence, then say so. I will respect your faith
Or... at least as much as you respect mine. :D

Peerie Maa
04-12-2009, 01:04 PM
Excuse me?
Since when has mere time anything to do with it? Time is, in this sense, strictly relative. It's the number of generations that count - that is - the speed at which an organism goes through its life-cycle.
There are a few organisms that in recorded history have gone through more generations than all large mammalian species combined in their entire history on earth. That's quite time enough for the evolution of a new species or three.
So show me a new species that has been observed to evolve.

I did Sam, remember post 88? A whole slew of new species on a set of new islands.
Are they not new species?
Are they not new islands?
Are they Sam? Are they?

Sam F
04-12-2009, 01:08 PM
People still use it; I suppose that makes it "alive"? People will probably use gaps in human knowledge as evidence for God as long as human knowledge of the world is incomplete, i.e. as long as our species lasts. That doesn't mean it's a valid argument.

Alas, your science of the gaps strategy hasn't performed very well.
"We don't understand it now, but just you hang on.... someday somebody someway somehow will explain it." You gotta give it TIME!
Lots more TIME than anyone can possibly ever observe.
Ya gotta have FAITH!
Yeah... that works. ;)

The fact remains that if you find a mechanism (i.e. any living cell) the existence of which can't be explained by accidental assembly via natural forces, you've got quite a problem on your hands.
It's not - let's say - exactly a definitive rebuttal of the watchmaker.
Ol' Paley these days is rolling in his grave... with laughter.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 01:09 PM
I did Sam, remember post 88? A whole slew of new species on a set of new islands.
Are they not new species?
Are they not new islands?
Are they Sam? Are they?

Did anyone observe them evolve?
Did they Peerie?
Did they?

Sam F
04-12-2009, 01:17 PM
I tried to give you fellas some guidance and all we get is more just-so stories.
Look, I applaud your faith. I unfortunately don't share it, but I'm happy for ya'll to believe any darn fool thing you wish...
But if empiricism is to triumph, you'll have to do better. Here it is again: There are species that go through their life cycles very very quickly. On their small scale, they have gone through more generations than most of the large species familiar to everyone - elephants anyone? Some of these have been closely observed for more than a century. Where are the new species?
Seen any?

Tom Montgomery
04-12-2009, 01:19 PM
He does go on, doesn't he?

Shame on those of you who are encouraging him.

Sam F
04-12-2009, 01:33 PM
Looks to me... it's like this. The Evolutionism proponants say:
"There's this here box. Put something in. Shut the lid. And pretty soon you get something different out. It'll transform a $20 bill into a $100. "
OK I say. Show it to me. Let me see it work
The Evolutionist says "Can't do it."
Why not?
"Cause it never works if someone's lookin'."
Really?
"Sure 'nuff". But it works everytime - you just can't see it. So put your money in the box!"
But how do I know my $20 will become a $100?
"Look boy, there's a lots of $100 bills scattered around. There's one on Fiji. See here's a photo. Proof positive!"
Nobody not eager to lose his cash to a scam would do that.
Maybe, just maybe, I could be excused for doubting too, eh?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-12-2009, 01:37 PM
He does go on, doesn't he?

Shame on those of you who are encouraging him.

Does ignoring count as encouraging?

Sam F
04-12-2009, 01:38 PM
See ya boys... I may be guilty of a sort of gluttony if I continue... or so my priest tells me. :D
So I'll head up to a more usual (and much more filling) risk of gluttony in a few minutes... :D

Tom Montgomery
04-12-2009, 02:25 PM
See ya boys... I may be guilty of a sort of gluttony if I continue... or so my priest tells me. :D

Your priest sounds like a very perceptive fellow. You would do well to heed his advice.

Peerie Maa
04-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Did anyone observe them evolve?
Did they Peerie?
Did they?

Well Sam, it was like this.

A ling time ago, about 4 million years ago, some volcanoes erupted in the middle of a big sea called the Pacific ocean. When the new islands had cooled down and it had rained enough to form some soil, seeds blew in on the wind and plants grew up. Then some birds blew in on storm winds, and some small tortoises and iguanas were washed up on bits of vegetation swept across the big ocean from South America. They had to be small for the clumps of floating vegetation to be able to support them. They found enough food to eat on these new islands, and started to evolve, until they became HUGE, much bigger than tortoises that could float on bits of vegetation washed down rivers.

True there was no one there to see them change, but you have no better explanation, and there sure as hell was no one there to witness your fairy story either, so why do you keep on asking for witnesses?

Tom Montgomery
04-12-2009, 03:17 PM
True there was no one there to see them change, but you have no better explanation, and there sure as hell was no one there to witness your fairy story either, so why do you keep on asking for witnesses?

Because SammyF will never, under any circumstance, accept scientific conclusions based upon the fossil record.

If no one can produce a million-year-old man as an eye-witness to speciation through natural selection, then Sammy will deny the legitimacy of the science because he will accept no other evidence.

Peerie Maa
04-12-2009, 03:22 PM
Because SammyF will never, under any circumstance, accept scientific conclusions based upon the fossil record.

But he is willing to believe some texts written down from hear say and folk memories at the most recent nearly two thousand years ago, and then translated a couple of times? When he can go and touch the fossils, and with a bit of coaching use the science to age them? Sheesh.

Rodney and plonker comes to mind.

Sam F
04-13-2009, 09:31 AM
Sam F
Did anyone observe them evolve?
Did they Peerie?
Did they?


Well Sam, it was like this.

A l[o]ng time ago, about 4 million years ago, some volcanoes erupted in the middle of a big sea called the Pacific ocean. When the new islands had cooled down and it had rained enough to form some soil, seeds blew in on the wind and plants grew up. Then some birds blew in on storm winds, and some small tortoises and iguanas were washed up on bits of vegetation swept across the big ocean from South America. They had to be small for the clumps of floating vegetation to be able to support them. They found enough food to eat on these new islands, and started to evolve, until they became HUGE, much bigger than tortoises that could float on bits of vegetation washed down rivers.

True there was no one there to see them change, but you have no better explanation, and there sure as hell was no one there to witness your fairy story either, so why do you keep on asking for witnesses?

Sounds a lot like:
Many years ago on a cold dark night
there was someone killed 'neath the court house light.
There was no one at the scene, but they all did agree that the
man who ran looked a lot like... :D

Sorry, but you couldn't convict a dog on the type of evidence you've presented.
The fact is that... "True there was no one to see them change..." does not answer my objection.
In stark contrast, there were hundreds at the scene to witness the living Jesus after He resurrected.
So... if we're going to witness any triumph of empiricism, I'll take an observed historical event over your fairy tale any day.
There's simply no rational alternative. :D

Glen Longino
04-13-2009, 09:46 AM
"Long Black Veil"
Dang, Sam, I'm surprised you're familiar with that song.
But, those alleged hundreds at the scene to witness the allegedly living Jesus after He allegedly resurrected are part of a Fairy Tale.

Keith Wilson
04-13-2009, 09:52 AM
You will note that every argument Sam posts is based on ignorance, on an alleged lack of evidence. I have challenged him many times to produce one single piece of positive empirical evidence that is incompatible with the current idea of Darwinian evolution. He has never done so. He can't. There is none.

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 09:53 AM
In stark contrast, there were hundreds at the scene to witness the living Jesus after He resurrected.


But have you spoken to any of them your self?
I could phone up the people who have seen the evidence for evolution should I feel the need.
You chose not to believe people that are alive today, who you can speak with and whose conclusions you can challenge and debate, yet you do believe the hearsay records of people dead for over 1900 years, that have been translated at least twice by scholars subject to prejudices derived from different world views.
And you try to tell me that your point of view is more rigorous than mine. Cowchips.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 09:54 AM
At the same time SamF carefully refuses to say what mechanism is responsible for the abundance of life forms on planet Earth. He says he doesn't know. But he does know it's not evolution :D

Kaa

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 10:04 AM
At the same time SamF carefully refuses to say what mechanism is responsible for the abundance of life forms on planet Earth. He says he doesn't know. But he does know it's not evolution :D

Kaa

Is Sam perhaps a closet creationist, who believes that creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 3, 4004 B.C., but has not yet come out?:D

Keith Wilson
04-13-2009, 10:11 AM
Is Sam perhaps a closet creationist . . Not closet at all. He had a good enough grasp of the evidence to to reject "young earth" fantasies, but a creationist, certainly. He also thinks that Adam and Eve actually existed (perfect, sinless, and immortal), and that "the fall" was an actual event.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 10:15 AM
Moreover, SamF has no problems with microevolution. It is only the speciation that he rejects. In plain terms, he thinks evolution can change existing species but cannot produce new species.

Kaa

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 10:16 AM
Not closet at all. He had a good enough grasp of the evidence to to reject "young earth" fantasies, but a creationist, certainly. He also thinks that Adam and Eve actually existed (perfect, sinless, and immortal), and that "the fall" was an actual event.

Here is a puzzle for Sam to answer. If Adam and Eve were the first and only humans on earth, what species of creature lived in Nod, and provided Cain with a wife?

Glen Longino
04-13-2009, 10:21 AM
From "River Out Of Eden"--Richard Dawkins

on human mitochondria: "Two billion years ago, the remote ancestors of mitochondria were free-living bacteria. Together with other bacteria of different kinds, they took up residence inside larger cells. The resulting community of ("prokaryotic") bacteria became the large ("eukaryotic") cell we call our own. Each one of us is a community of a hundred million million mutually dependent eukaryotic cells. Each one of those cells is a community of thousands of specially-tamed bacteria, entirely enclosed within the cell, where they multiply as bacteria will..."

I didn't post this to enlighten anybody, but simply to annoy Deb and Sam!:D

Sam F
04-13-2009, 10:37 AM
Is Sam perhaps a closet creationist, who believes that creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 3, 4004 B.C., but has not yet come out?:D

Are you perhaps trying to lay a down an awful lot of smoke to hide the fact that you are unable to answer my objection?

Sam F
04-13-2009, 10:40 AM
At the same time SamF carefully refuses to say what mechanism is responsible for the abundance of life forms on planet Earth. He says he doesn't know.
That's called an agnostic position.


But he does know it's not evolution :D

Kaa

Quite to the contrary. Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred.
What I do know is that the process was not Darwinian.
Sorry, but the evidence simply is not sufficient to support the Darwinian account.

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 10:48 AM
Are you perhaps trying to lay a down an awful lot of smoke to hide the fact that you are unable to answer my objection?

As far as I can tell you objection is pure cowchips, and a product of your mind alone. Only you want eyewitness accounts for million year old events. For an intelligent man you use the arguments of fools.


Sorry, but the evidence simply is not sufficient to support the Darwinian account.
What parts of the currently accepted evolutionary process lack evidence in your eyes?

Kaa
04-13-2009, 10:56 AM
Quite to the contrary. Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred.
What I do know is that the process was not Darwinian.

This is interesting. What do you mean by a non-Darwinian evolution?

Kaa

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 03:28 PM
...positive empirical evidence that is incompatible with the current idea of Darwinian evolution.


I consider the degree of fine tuning in physical law in general, and in the cosmos in particular, incompatible with evolutionary thought.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 03:32 PM
I consider the degree of fine tuning in physical law in general, and in the cosmos in particular, incompatible with evolutionary thought.

Deb, you sound a bit confused.

"Evolutionary thought" applies to biology, to living things. It does not apply to physics and to cosmology in particular.

Nobody claims that physical constants "evolved" whatever that could mean.

Kaa

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 03:35 PM
But have you spoken to any of them your self?

C'mon, PM...you are worthy of much better discussion....


I could phone up the people who have seen the evidence for evolution should I feel the need.

Micro, but not macro. And I can call up many that have evidence for God!...in fact, I don't even have to phone someone. Here I am! ;)




the hearsay records of people dead for over 1900 years, that have been translated at least twice by scholars subject to prejudices derived from different world views.

The date of a historical event, and the deaths of witnesses to that event, do not impinge on whether that event occurred. Questions related to sound historical method, and perhaps what we consider sound (legal) testimony may impinge, but not dating.

I'm not sure where you're going with "translated at least twice" and "scholars subject to prejudice". Scholars of ancient texts, regardless of worldview, will affirm the veracity of current bible translations. So, you lost me here, pm...

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 03:40 PM
Deb, you sound a bit confused.

"Evolutionary thought" applies to biology, to living things. It does not apply to physics and to cosmology in particular.

Nobody claims that physical constants "evolved" whatever that could mean.

Kaa

Sorry Kaa....I have this habit of trying to abbreviate and condense things and end up leaving too much out! :o

Wassa matta? Can't you guys read my mind yet?!?!! :eek: ;)

So, let me go back....i.e. the underlying assumption, the foundation of evolutionary thought, i.e. time plus chance plus natural selection is all there is - i.e. naturalism in a closed system.

And thanks for the reminder that we not stretch evolution beyond the bounds of biology, as has become the tendency (Dawkins, et al).

Keith Wilson
04-13-2009, 03:45 PM
i.e. the underlying assumption, the foundation of evolutionary thought, i.e. time plus chance plus natural selection is all there is - i.e. naturalism in a closed system. Well, almost, but not quite. The underlying assumption of absolutely all of science and technology, from astrophysics to molecular biology to to chemical engineering machine design to boatbuilding to plumbing is naturalism: i.e. we will consider only causes and effects that are empirically verifiable. There might be something else, but the supernatural, by definition, is beyond our understanding.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 03:45 PM
Wassa matta? Can't you guys read my mind yet?!?!! :eek: ;)

We're getting there :D A few more circles around the mulberry bush and we should be able to just throw post numbers at each other without the necessity of retyping text :D


So, let me go back....i.e. the underlying assumption, the foundation of evolutionary thought, i.e. time plus chance plus natural selection is all there is - i.e. naturalism in a closed system.

Not at all. The underlying assumption is that time + chance + natural selection is enough to produce the observed variety of life forms. There is no claim about "all there is" for the simple reason that it's notoriously hard to prove absence of something.

Kaa

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 04:19 PM
C'mon, PM...you are worthy of much better discussion....



Micro, but not macro. And I can call up many that have evidence for God!...in fact, I don't even have to phone someone. Here I am! ;)




The date of a historical event, and the deaths of witnesses to that event, do not impinge on whether that event occurred. Questions related to sound historical method, and perhaps what we consider sound (legal) testimony may impinge, but not dating.

I'm not sure where you're going with "translated at least twice" and "scholars subject to prejudice". Scholars of ancient texts, regardless of worldview, will affirm the veracity of current bible translations. So, you lost me here, pm...

Come on Deb, surely you realise that I am trying to get SamF to put forth a coherent argument, rather than the inconsequential irrelevancies that he has been relying upon in this thread. Go back and look at his posts and you will see what I mean. Your third point about timing completely agrees with my position in the argument with Sam.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 04:24 PM
thanks, pm.
now, what did you mean about the translations thing?

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 04:26 PM
The underlying assumption is that time + chance + natural selection is enough to produce the observed variety of life forms.
Kaa

Thank you. Much better than the way I said it....but see, you ARE starting to read my mind! :eek: :o

So, as you pointed out, evolutionary theory only relates to issues of biology. So, how does naturalism account for cosmological issues/issues of natural law? Chance, right?

Kaa
04-13-2009, 04:29 PM
Thank you. Much better than the way I said it....but see, you ARE starting to read my mind! :eek: :o

So, as you pointed out, evolutionary theory only relates to issues of biology. So, how does naturalism account for cosmological issues/issues of natural law? Chance, right?

I am not sure what do you mean by "naturalism". And what cosmological issues do you have in mind?

Kaa

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 04:35 PM
thanks, pm.
now, what did you mean about the translations thing?

Deb, I was contrasting, for Sam's benefit, Sam's argument that he will not accept that evolution happens because he cannot interview anyone who has witnessed it, with his belief in a collection of writings over whose translations scholars are still arguing.
For example, there is a view that a slip of the pen changes the word for the general term"young woman" into the specific "virgin". It is also known that meanings of words drift with time, one example that comes to mind is that in the time of the Georgian novelists morning covered a lot more of the day than it does now. There will be many other examples that have not come my way, but I am not as confident as you that all bible scholars agree on a consensus on current bible translations.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 04:39 PM
I am not sure what do you mean by "naturalism". And what cosmological issues do you have in mind?

Kaa

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." (source: infidels.org).

Given that, I have difficulty reconciling the high degree of cosmological fine tuning, and the pattern specificity of DNA with naturalism. Just wondered what your thoughts were, particularly related to the cosmology/physical laws side of things.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 04:40 PM
...I am trying to get SamF to put forth a coherent argument...

Good luck with that :D That has been attempted many times over many years with scarcely any success worth mentioning.

Kaa

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 04:46 PM
...there is a view that a slip of the pen changes the word for the general term"young woman" into the specific "virgin".

... meanings of words drift with time, one example that comes to mind is that in the time of the Georgian novelists morning covered a lot more of the day than it does now.

... bible scholars agree on a consensus on current bible translations.

The agreement concerns our having what the manuscripts say.

That is a separate issue from interpretation - i.e. understanding scripture in context (time, culture, genre, etc.), working to understand the author's original intention, and what his hearers would have understood he was saying e.g. understanding that 'gay' in 1950 meant something different than 'gay' means today. A recent translation may interpret a 1900 novel's use of 'gay' as exuberant, joyful, carefree, or whatever.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 04:49 PM
Once again, the non-affirmative argument... the one that presumes that lack of evidence somehow confirms a theory.

Maybe for you, but not for me. I find a large, significant body of evidence, not a lack of evidence at all.

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 04:55 PM
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." (source: infidels.org).

Given that, I have difficulty reconciling the high degree of cosmological fine tuning, and the pattern specificity of DNA with naturalism. Just wondered what your thoughts were, particularly related to the cosmology/physical laws side of things.

What fine tuning Deb? In this instance the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It works because it works. There is no tuning, it just is. Cosmologists/atomic physicists set up thought experiments where the physical constants have different values, by way of furthering their understanding, but the long and short of it is we are here because our set of constants have the values that they do.

Keith Wilson
04-13-2009, 04:56 PM
I consider the degree of fine tuning in physical law in general, and in the cosmos in particular, incompatible with evolutionary thought. Evolutionary theory tells us absolutely nothing about how physical laws got to be how they are, nor anything at all about the cosmos, any more than it explains how to rebuild a carburetor or heat-treat tool steel. Nor does it explain how life began on earth. It's a very, very well-documented explanation of how living organisms develop and change over time. That's all.
. . . the pattern specificity of DNA Eh?

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 05:05 PM
...the long and short of it is we are here because our set of constants have the values that they do.

Agreed....but I wonder why, why those particular, exacting values...why and how....that's what I wonder.....

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 05:11 PM
Agreed....but I wonder why, why those particular, exacting values...why and how....that's what I wonder.....

Trouble is, that's a lot like saying why gravity, and why does air transmit red light and diffuse blue, or why is blue blue ?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-13-2009, 05:13 PM
Evolution isn't necessarily a big deal for any Theist. God, being omnipotent, could have created life anyway He saw fit - including Evolution. For us, it's sweating the small stuff.
Here's why it's such a big deal to anti-theists:
(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, page 6)

Thus Darwinian Materialist Evolution is The Creed of today's Atheists.
Attack Evolution and you've attacked Atheist Faith.
No wonder they get upset.
Poor things! For people who demand empirical proof, Darwin's Evolution is not even as verifiable as the Apostle’s creed.


Okay, so if I follow this through, the bible is not correct, since God created evolution. Is there anything else the bible changed about what really happened?

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 05:15 PM
With all respect, you have a significant body of belief.... not a body of evidence. The 'evidence' of the fine tuning of the cosmos? ... WHAT evidence?

Here ya go, Norm....I'm surprised this is news to you....
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a6c073b9a5f7041f3d27

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 05:16 PM
...the bible is not correct, since God created evolution.

ya lost me....

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 05:37 PM
Here ya go, Norm....I'm surprised this is news to you....
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a6c073b9a5f7041f3d27

Well, that was about 5 1/2 minutes of stating the bl##ding obvious, one interesting fact (that the maths is elegantly simple) followed by a conclusion of pure cowchips. The intelligence to be able to build on the knowledge of those who went before is our evolutionary advantage, which lead in the fullness of time to science and pure maths, which lead with increasing rapidity to the greater understanding that we have now. All that clip shows is that eminent physicists know diddly squat about progress in understanding outside their own discipline.

Glen Longino
04-13-2009, 05:39 PM
Agreed....but I wonder why, why those particular, exacting values...why and how....that's what I wonder.....

You Say you wonder, but in fact you don't Appear to wonder.
You Appear to Know...why and how...Because God made it so!

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 05:59 PM
If the universe was designed to be "fine-tuned" for life, why is most of the universe highly hostile to life?

Keith Wilson
04-13-2009, 06:06 PM
Agreed....but I wonder why, why those particular, exacting values...why and how....that's what I wonder.....Interesting question. For now, nobody knows why physical constants are what they are. That isn't evidence for or against anything; we just don't know. Someday we may - or maybe not.
If the universe was designed to be "fine-tuned" for life, why is most of the universe highly hostile to life?Our kind of life, anyway. Are there other kinds? Nobody knows.

brad9798
04-13-2009, 06:10 PM
Either way, WX and shagrock ... ESPECIALLY shagrock, you are a fool! :(

jbelow
04-13-2009, 06:10 PM
Evolutionary theory tells us absolutely nothing about how physical laws got to be how they are, nor anything at all about the cosmos, any more than it explains how to rebuild a carburetor or heat-treat tool steel. Nor does it explain how life began on earth. It's a very, very well-documented explanation of how living organisms develop and change over time. That's all.Eh?

I agree somewhat with your statement. Physical laws can offten times be observered and or proven by mathmatics. Newtons laws of gravity for example , we can observe what gravity does but we do not know what is or where it came from. The same can be said for the nuclear force that holds the nutrons and protons together in the nucleus of an atom.

I disagree that evolution is very , very well documented. The fossil record is incompete . There is not enough transitional species. I have yet to hear or see evolution duplicated in a lab.

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 06:20 PM
I thought "gravity" was a curve in spacetime caused by the presence of mass and/or energy. Newton described its behavior, Einstein explained what it is. As to where it came from... the simple answer is, "From the same place everything else came from."

Peerie Maa
04-13-2009, 06:22 PM
I agree somewhat with your statement. Physical laws can offten times be observered and or proven by mathmatics. Newtons laws of gravity for example , we can observe what gravity does but we do not know what is or where it came from. The same can be said for the nuclear force that holds the nutrons and protons together in the nucleus of an atom.

I disagree that evolution is very , very well documented. The fossil record is incompete . There is not enough transitional species. I have yet to hear or see evolution duplicated in a lab.

Post #125 came pretty close.:D There are transitional species turning up all of the time, the fine grained deposits in China are filling in the gaps in the feathered dinosaur story, a link between fish and amphibians turned up recently. We just have to be patient and more gaps will close.

WX
04-13-2009, 06:46 PM
Either way, WX and shagrock ... ESPECIALLY shagrock, you are a fool! :(

Well now that's deep.

brad9798
04-13-2009, 06:57 PM
Did I mention, that I believe in evolution, WX?

Sam F
04-13-2009, 07:20 PM
As far as I can tell you objection is pure cowchips, and a product of your mind alone. Only you want eyewitness accounts for million year old events. For an intelligent man you use the arguments of fools.


I made no such objection. I pointed out that many organisms have gone through some very rapid life cycles - so many that they are equivalent to million of years in relatively few human years. They are quite observable. Where are the new species whose evolution has been witnessed?
I've said that as plainly as possible - why won't you answer what I said and stop telling just-so stories?

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 07:24 PM
You are opposed to just-so-stories? Surely you jest!

WX
04-13-2009, 07:29 PM
Sorry Brad, I'm a bit on the tired side this morning and not quite with it.
So is that evolution with or without God?

brad9798
04-13-2009, 07:35 PM
WHAT does God have to do with EVOLUTION!

Are you in a corner, now, WX? :(

WX
04-13-2009, 07:39 PM
WHAT does God have to do with EVOLUTION!


Well that answers that question:D
No corner but I am having trouble working out what you have taken exception to.

Sam F
04-13-2009, 07:59 PM
Deb, I was contrasting, for Sam's benefit, Sam's argument that he will not accept that evolution happens because he cannot interview anyone who has witnessed it,...

That's odd! I said nothing about interviewing anybody. All I asked for is a new species with an observed evolution. I suggested organisms with very rapid life cycles that could quite possibly have been observed to evolve into new species. You gave me no examples. Instead, you gave me story about a island far far away and a long time ago.... But that's not empirical science, that's a fairy tale.


...with his belief in a collection of writings over whose translations scholars are still arguing.

Frankly that's the argument of fools. Who exactly is arguing about the relevant passages (on the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus) and on what grounds?
Assertion is not proof, dear Peerie.
Let's drop the dodging, insults and story-telling please, and provide specifics.

WX
04-13-2009, 08:03 PM
SamF, try here.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030421210938data_trunc_sys.shtml

brad9798
04-13-2009, 08:07 PM
Evlotuion and religion are NOT mutually exclusive!

That's all, WX!!! :)

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 08:07 PM
I must be missing something.
They started with a mouse, and ended with a mouse.
How is this evidence of evolutionary change from one species into another?

(re WX's #167)

jbelow
04-13-2009, 08:08 PM
Post #125 came pretty close.:D There are transitional species turning up all of the time, the fine grained deposits in China are filling in the gaps in the feathered dinosaur story, a link between fish and amphibians turned up recently. We just have to be patient and more gaps will close.

Sorry . No ciguar for you. Flies be got flies and fish be got fish. Like humans , they all come in different sizes , shapes and colors.

I do hope those China fossils are in good shape and possible DNA extracted. That could give evolution a boost in credibility.

WX
04-13-2009, 08:20 PM
How is this evidence of evolutionary change from one species into another?

Evolution is all about adaptation to environmental influences. Changes in climate, food sources, threat etc.

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 08:36 PM
I must be missing something.
They started with a mouse, and ended with a mouse.
How is this evidence of evolutionary change from one species into another?

There are 30 known species of mouse. For example, the common house mouse (Mus musculus) and the American white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) are two different species. You might find either one in your house and would only tell them apart by close examination.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 08:41 PM
There are 30 known species of mouse. For example, the common house mouse and the white footed mouse are two different species. You might find either one in your house and would only tell them apart by close examination.

Ya....mouse begets mouse.
And WX, I understand evidence of adaptation to environmental change, but they still had mice begetting mice, not cats, dogs or monkeys.

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 08:50 PM
Ya....mouse begets mouse.
And WX, I understand evidence of adaptation to environmental change, but they still had mice begetting mice, not cats, dogs or monkeys.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I'll say it again: there are 30 known species of mouse. You and SamF appear to share a mistaken concept of "species." The evidence appears to show that the American white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) is rapidly evolving into a 31st species of mouse. The idea that speciation through natural selection would involve mice "begetting cats, dogs, or monkeys" is simply wrong.

Of course, this blows Sam's argument completely out of the water.

jbelow
04-13-2009, 09:01 PM
I thought "gravity" was a curve in spacetime caused by the presence of mass and/or energy. Newton described its behavior, Einstein explained what it is. As to where it came from... the simple answer is, "From the same place everything else came from."

Tom , atta boy . Einsteins theory of relativity best explains what gravity is for now. Google farther and you will find other theories on gravity. Cartan , Brans-Dicke , and Rosen bimetric , to name a few.
It can be difficult to wrap our minds around theories.

Without doing a Google search , I will guess that two of the most intelligent men that ever lived - Newton & Einstein at the very least , believed in Deity and may have evoked Gods name in their great discoveries.

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 09:14 PM
Well... Newton at least. Einstein was one of those slippery Deists who liked to use the word "God" to represent his sense of awe at the majesty of the Universe. He certainly did not believe in the Judeo/Christian concept of an intervening personal God.

And Newton, the greatest scientist of his age, spent more of his time on the occult than he did in the study of physics. He explicated, for example, the apocalyptic passages in the Bible, and interpreted the measurements of Solomon's temple, hoping in both cases that a mystic reading of the scriptures would lead him to the inmost secrets of the universe.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 09:56 PM
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." (source: infidels.org).

Lots of context is needed for this to make any kind of sense, but let's try a simpler version.

Would you say that "naturalism" is the theory/hypothesis that nothing supernatural (primarily, God or gods) directly affects the physical world?

If so, there is no way to prove it, of course, but it seems reasonable to me. So what about it?


Given that, I have difficulty reconciling the high degree of cosmological fine tuning, and the pattern specificity of DNA with naturalism. Just wondered what your thoughts were, particularly related to the cosmology/physical laws side of things.

I don't know what you mean by "pattern specificity of DNA". The cosmological "fine tuning" is adequately explained (for me) by the anthropic principle. Basically, the universe might very well have turned out to be very different, but then we wouldn't be here to argue about it. Or, if you prefer the multiple-universes interpretation, *this* universe is fine-tuned in this specific way because there are other universes which are fine-tuned in other ways.

Kaa

WX
04-13-2009, 09:57 PM
but they still had mice begetting mice, not cats, dogs or monkeys. http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2164302)

And if the begetting goes on long enough the mouse may change enough characteristics to be labeled something else, but you won't get a dog or a cat from a mouse or a human.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 10:01 PM
... but you won't get a dog or a cat from a mouse or a human.

But, I understand Darwinian evolutionary theory to state all life evolved from the same beginning, i.e. atoms and molecules of inert matter. Therefore, at some points mice must become cats, dogs, people, right?

I hear you saying this never occurred.

What am I missing here....

Kaa
04-13-2009, 10:04 PM
But, I understand Darwinian evolutionary theory to state all life evolved from the same beginning, i.e. atoms and molecules of inert matter. Therefore, at some points mice must become cats, dogs, people, right?

Nope. There is some common ancestor to mice, cats, dogs, and people. Mice didn't become dogs -- but there was some species that eventually evolved into mice and into dogs.

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 10:08 PM
All I know is that SamF's demand for an example of observed evolution of one species into another has been met.

No doubt he'll be disappointed that it is merely one species of mouse evolving into another species of mouse. But his disappointment will simply be the product of his own misunderstanding. An evolution of a mouse into, say, a shrew-like creature would require a much longer span of time.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 10:11 PM
Nope. There is some common ancestor to mice, cats, dogs, and people. Mice didn't become dogs -- but there was some species that eventually evolved into mice and into dogs.

Kaa

OK...so rather than mice became cat, dog, etc. we have X became mouse, cat, dog, etc. Difference?

Issue is we still have one species becoming another species, correct?

Tom Montgomery
04-13-2009, 10:12 PM
Correct.

WX
04-13-2009, 10:14 PM
Therefore, at some points mice must become cats, dogs, people, right?

I see your point, everything starts from somewhere.
http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html

This one is worth a read and isn't too long.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/41

Kaa
04-13-2009, 10:16 PM
OK...so rather than mice became cat, dog, etc. we have X became mouse, cat, dog, etc. Difference?

Issue is we still have one species becoming another species, correct?

Yep, correct.

Though, I think, more commonly you would see a new, another species branching off from an already established species.

Kaa

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 10:19 PM
ok....and WX's example was of mice staying mice. Norm's earlier picture was of fruit flies becoming more fruit flies.

I consider micro and macro evolution different issues, and evidence for one is not necessarily evidence for the other.

This macro/micro distinction is what I understood Sam to be talking about, but perhaps I wasn't following him correctly.

WX
04-13-2009, 10:22 PM
You could say the micro changes lead to the macro changes over time.

oznabrag
04-13-2009, 10:22 PM
Nicely done, fellas.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 10:25 PM
You could say the micro changes lead to the macro changes over time.

This is the point at which Sam screams, "show me the evidence!"...not meaning to put words in his mouth...:o ;)

I understand this is the Darwinian theory, and it is predominantly at this point that some contend it is a theory, not a fact.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 10:28 PM
I consider micro and macro evolution different issues, and evidence for one is not necessarily evidence for the other.

But why?

Why wouldn't micro evolution over a sufficiently long period of time become macro? Is there some boundary which is cannot cross? What is it?

Kaa

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 10:30 PM
Why would it? We don't know that it necessarily would, and we don't have a lot of evidence that it actually did. That seems to be the rub.

Kaa
04-13-2009, 10:35 PM
Why would it? We don't know that it necessarily would, and we don't have a lot of evidence that it actually did. That seems to be the rub.

Well, it's like you're saying "you can move an inch by an inch, but you'll never be able to move a whole mile this way, no matter how long it takes".

As to availability of evidence, SamF seem to be not satisfied with anything that doesn't happen before his very eyes...

Kaa

WX
04-13-2009, 10:41 PM
I understand this is the Darwinian theory, and it is predominantly at this point that some contend it is a theory, not a fact.

Not true actually, the Riversleigh deposits in QLD have yielded a fossil record of the evolutionary changes in the platypus. The platypus use to have teeth.
Look at the horse, it's ancestors can be traced back to a very small and timid deer like animal.

Herby
04-13-2009, 10:46 PM
Why wouldn't micro evolution over a sufficiently long period of time become macro? Is there some boundary which is cannot cross? What is it?

Kaa

The evidence is that we can now order food online, instead of clubbing it to death and eating it raw.

Nanoose
04-13-2009, 10:49 PM
Not true actually, the Riversleigh deposits in QLD have yielded a fossil record of the evolutionary changes in the platypus. The platypus use to have teeth.
Look at the horse, it's ancestors can be traced back to a very small and timid deer like animal.

Again, I am making a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Your examples are of micro, for which there is, yes, lots of evidence.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-14-2009, 03:48 AM
Define "Micro Evolution" and "Macro Evolution" - ir is this another of the endless pointless arguments where a pretence of discussion masks the intention to kill the discussion.

skuthorp
04-14-2009, 05:03 AM
It's what we humans do quite well PI, discuss, argue, have and hold opinions even if they are unreasonable and can be proven incorrect. Thankfully faith, religion, sectarianism and the minutae of individuals own slants provide us all with endless hours of pleasure and frustration. Pain and anguish even for some I think. Even amongst the unbelievers who might reasonably be expected to ignore matters of supposed mythology the fascination is there. Of course, then there is politics!

WX
04-14-2009, 05:06 AM
Micro would minor changes within any given species, such as Darwin's Finches. Macro would be along the lines of a shrew like animal evolving into a bat. In New Zealand the reverse is happening, a bat is evolving back into a shrew like ground dweller because there are no predators to attack it...though with European settlement has come the cat and the rat.

skuthorp
04-14-2009, 05:16 AM
SWMBO was a teacher for 40 years and is a firm believer in devolution!

downthecreek
04-14-2009, 05:20 AM
And if the begetting goes on long enough the mouse may change enough characteristics to be labeled something else, but you won't get a dog or a cat from a mouse or a human.

Exactly. "Species" is a human construct. Many creatures that we would consider very different species have been shown to be linked in evolutionary terms. Darwin didn't use the metaphor of the branching tree for no reason.

Tom Montgomery
04-14-2009, 05:23 AM
First SamF, Nanoose and jbelow demand observational evidence of one species evolving into another. Then, once a major misunderstanding regarding "species" is cleared up and the evidence demanded is provided, they then quibble about "micro" versus "macro" evolution. As I said, some people will not, under any circumstance, accept the evidence in the fossil record.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-14-2009, 05:25 AM
Micro would minor changes within any given species, .... Macro would be along the lines of a shrew like animal evolving into ...

That's your definition - I wonder what other people are using.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 05:29 AM
Deb, you are thinking like a designer. Evolution does not work like that. There was no "I need a dog, what have I got to work with, will this mouse do?" The process works randomly. Small changes occur at random. Some don't work and fail to produce viable offspring, some just sit there with out having much effect, some do produce a noticeable change. The changing DNA in those mice is evidence of this. It may take several changes to accumulate before an evolutionary advantage occurs, changing the make-up in the population. It will take time before the population splits to form new species. The current rule about speciation is an inability to interbreed, so the different forms of dog with all of their diversity are still one species, but ponies and donkeys, as similar as they are are different species. That was the point I made earlier to Sam using the Galapagos tortoises as evidence for evolution. A few tortoises able to float on a raft of drifting branches, evolved into several species of huge tortoises, in a known time-scale.
Sam's problem is that successful species have no drivers to make them change or die out, so they last for millennia, his objection to evolution is no objection, it just happens that way. Also evolution can operate at a slow steady rate, and at the same time can remain static for geologically long periods, and then suddenly kick off with a period of rapid change, before settling down again.

PeterSibley
04-14-2009, 05:31 AM
Again, I am making a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Your examples are of micro, for which there is, yes, lots of evidence.

In my understanding that's the way it happens ....very slowly ...micro .

WX
04-14-2009, 06:02 AM
That's your definition - I wonder what other people are using.

Yes...and...?
They are welcome to expound it here.

downthecreek
04-14-2009, 08:18 AM
Given that, I have difficulty reconciling the high degree of cosmological fine tuning, and the pattern specificity of DNA with naturalism. Just wondered what your thoughts were, particularly related to the cosmology/physical laws side of things.

The cosmos fine tuned for life? Or, perhaps, in the unimaginable vastness of the universe there happened to occur, in our almost infinitesimally tiny corner of it, the conditions in which life could, and did, arise.

Perhaps it is not so much a case of the cosmos existing to support us, but more of us existing because a corner of the cosmos happened to develop in such a way as to be able to support us.

Glen Longino
04-14-2009, 08:30 AM
The cosmos fine tuned for life? Or, perhaps, in the unimaginable vastness of the universe there happened to occur, in our almost infinitesimally tiny corner of it, the conditions in which life could, and did, arise.

Perhaps it is not so much a case of the cosmos existing to support us, but more of us existing because a corner of the cosmos happened to develop in such a way as to be able to support us.

You mean, like, we humans are actually insignificant in the great scheme of the Cosmos?
Are you saying that God did not actually create us because He was lonely? And that He sat idly by twiddling His thumbs while we sinned and fell from grace, and He blames us for His Poor Craftsmanship?
Is that what you're saying?
Do you really expect people to believe that Fairy Tale?:rolleyes::)

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 08:34 AM
You mean, like, we humans are actually insignificant in the great scheme of the Cosmos?
Are you saying that God did not actually create us because He was lonely? And that He sat idly by twiddling His thumbs while we sinned and fell from grace, and He blames us for His Poor Craftsmanship?
Is that what you're saying?
Do you really expect people to believe that Fairy Tale?:rolleyes::)

"Does this face look bothered":D

Glen Longino
04-14-2009, 08:49 AM
:D:D
Nope!

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 08:56 AM
:D:D
Nope!

That's about it, but some of our friends on here seem to need that there to be a reason why it works. Me, I'm just happy it does. There are other things to use CPU capacity on.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 09:10 AM
Actually, I think the fruit fly experiment is better than the fossil record, as direct evidence of one mechanism of speciation.

One common definition of how one differentiates species is inter-mating; if the don't inter-mate and/or produce viable offspring, they are a different species. The fruit fly example shows how differences in environment (specifically, the type of food source) can result in the generation of differentiable species in just eight generations.

Admittedly, this is just a single crude experiment, and undoubtedly there are much more complex interactions at play here... but If you can demonstrate, by experiment, the process, then why is it so hard to understand how that process could occur naturally?

Good point. The fossil record indicated that it has worked, and most of the steps that happened between then and now. This Sam appears to be unable to accept. The fruit fly's demonstrate one mechanism of how, in real time, which answers Sam's question directly.

Nanoose
04-14-2009, 09:21 AM
Again :rolleyes:, either I've been unclear, or youse guys simply choose to 'listen' to me in one way only :(, but let's continue....

I have no problem with all of the above (thanks, WX, for understanding mico vs. macro....and I think the rest of the team got it and is just trying to be difficult :(, but anyways....)

Given this process (evidence established) where are all the intermediate forms one would have to find in the fossil record to establish macro from micro...that must surely exist as we see X becoming everything else? Darwin noted they were lacking, and believed they would be found, noting they would have to be found for his theory to hold. 150 years later, we're still looking, and they're still lacking. That's the part I don't get...

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-14-2009, 09:23 AM
Oh goodie - we have returned once again to the "God of the ever diminishing gaps" argument.


It must now - given any honest reading of the fruit fly example - be a pretty skinny god.

Anyone want a size zero.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 09:24 AM
ok....and WX's example was of mice staying mice. Norm's earlier picture was of fruit flies becoming more fruit flies.

I consider micro and macro evolution different issues, and evidence for one is not necessarily evidence for the other.

Of course they're different. Nobody objects to micro-evolution. Nobody.
The main objection to macro-evolution is that:
1. The evolution of one species into another has never been observed*
2. The fossil record does not support Darwinian Gradualism


This macro/micro distinction is what I understood Sam to be talking about, but perhaps I wasn't following him correctly.

Close enough. I wouldn't mind even if Darwin were spot on correct. This is not a theological objection - rather it's one of contrary available evidence.

*1,000,000's of years ago on a continent far far away is not going to cut it. That's a faith-based argument.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 09:30 AM
But why?

Why wouldn't micro evolution over a sufficiently long period of time become macro? Is there some boundary which is cannot cross? What is it?

Kaa

There's no obvious reason, as far as I can tell, why not. The problem is in the evidence. And the evidence is that species' variations revolve around a mean or type and can only stray so far from it. That's why, no matter how much selective breeding people may apply, you'll never see a strawberry as big as a watermelon... Or a dog the size of an elephant.
No matter how much wishful thinking one wants to apply the evidence doesn't support the Darwinian account.

Kaa
04-14-2009, 09:30 AM
Er, Sam? At some point you mentioned that you're a fan of non-Darwinian evolution. Perhaps you could clarify what do you mean by this?

Kaa

Sam F
04-14-2009, 09:37 AM
Well, it's like you're saying "you can move an inch by an inch, but you'll never be able to move a whole mile this way, no matter how long it takes".

Nobody claims that's not possible. What skeptics of Evolution notice however is that every inch must increase fitness along the way. If it didn't Natural Selection would be contradicted and given the tautological nature of Survival of the Fittest, that would be utterly impossible.
Unfortunately, there's no way to do that for the aforementioned bat. There are no half bats. And there's no possible way that a 1/2 bat - a bat with too-small wings & unable to fly could conceivably be competitively more fit than one not so equipped.


As to availability of evidence, SamF seem to be not satisfied with anything that doesn't happen before his very eyes...

Kaa

Now that's silly Kaa. You can do better than that. I know you can.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 09:38 AM
Er, Sam? At some point you mentioned that you're a fan of non-Darwinian evolution. Perhaps you could clarify what do you mean by this?

Kaa

I don't recall ever saying I was a "fan" of anything concerning biology. Did I do so?

Sam F
04-14-2009, 09:44 AM
Again :rolleyes:, either I've been unclear, or youse guys simply choose to 'listen' to me in one way only :(, but let's continue....

I have no problem with all of the above (thanks, WX, for understanding mico vs. macro....and I think the rest of the team got it and is just trying to be difficult :(, but anyways....)

Given this process (evidence established) where are all the intermediate forms one would have to find in the fossil record to establish macro from micro...that must surely exist as we see X becoming everything else? Darwin noted they were lacking, and believed they would be found, noting they would have to be found for his theory to hold. 150 years later, we're still looking, and they're still lacking. That's the part I don't get...

I don't think the team was just trying to be difficult. In the Darwinian sense, micro is macro. Gradualism insists that species are, to use a metaphor, more of a wave form - continually changing through time in response to environmental "steering". The problem is that the fossil evidence does not support that view. There ought to be countless intermediate forms in evidence. Instead, species stand remarkably stable in form throughout their existence - from their first appearance in the fossil record to their ultimate disappearance.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 09:44 AM
Again :rolleyes:, either I've been unclear, or youse guys simply choose to 'listen' to me in one way only :(, but let's continue....

I have no problem with all of the above (thanks, WX, for understanding mico vs. macro....and I think the rest of the team got it and is just trying to be difficult :(, but anyways....)

Given this process (evidence established) where are all the intermediate forms one would have to find in the fossil record to establish macro from micro...that must surely exist as we see X becoming everything else? Darwin noted they were lacking, and believed they would be found, noting they would have to be found for his theory to hold. 150 years later, we're still looking, and they're still lacking. That's the part I don't get...

Deb, it is extremely unusual for any fossil to form, the conditions have to be just so. The cadaver has to be buried before it is eaten by scavengers, it has to be buried in such a way that the soil or sediment chemistry can preserve it, and for us to find it it has to avoid being destroyed by erosion but be uncovered at just the moment when a fossil hunter turns up. We are incredibly lucky to have as many as we have.
The Burgess shale's are a case in point. The animals were fossilized because they were trapped in a mud slide of extremely fine grained mud. Then it needed some pretty clever analysis techniques to reconstruct the soft bodied creatures squashed flat as road kill.
It is no wonder that there are "missing links" but they are turning up. In the last couple of years a fish to amphibian link has shown up, and the Chinese feathered dinosaurs of Liaoning are teaching us a lot about proto birds.

Kaa
04-14-2009, 09:51 AM
I don't recall ever saying I was a "fan" of anything concerning biology. Did I do so?

OK, I cheerfully admit my wrongness and hereby proclaim that I accept that you, SamF, are not a "fan" of anything concerning biology :D (pssst... you might be missing a lot of really good stuff! :-) )

So, let's recall what you actually said:


Quite to the contrary. Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred.
What I do know is that the process was not Darwinian.
Sorry, but the evidence simply is not sufficient to support the Darwinian account.

First, there is remarkable confusion here between absence of proof and proof of absence. Looks like you're claiming that because you don't see sufficient evidence for Darwinism, you know the process was not Darwinian.

But let's leave this aside for the moment, since it's a typical and common confusion of yours. I am interested in what do you mean by "some sort of evolution" that "almost certainly occurred" and at the same time was not Darwinian. What kind of evolution are we talking about?

Kaa

Sam F
04-14-2009, 09:52 AM
Good point. The fossil record indicated that it has worked, and most of the steps that happened between then and now. This Sam appears to be unable to accept. The fruit fly's demonstrate one mechanism of how, in real time, which answers Sam's question directly.

Sorry but that's quite inadequate. Of course no one denies that you could design a new species. But that's entirely non-Darwinian isn't it? ;)
I will grant you that the picture was pretty. But it's fruit fly in and fruit fly out. It's no big deal to select for certain traits and thus artificially separate two kinds of the same species. But are they really different species? No. They are two varieties of the same species. In horticulture there is enormous variety in outward morphology (as in Brassica oleracea), but they're still the same species.
No one not already wedded to Darwinism would be convinced. I suggest a divorce.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 10:05 AM
There's no obvious reason, as far as I can tell, why not. The problem is in the evidence. And the evidence is that species' variations revolve around a mean or type and can only stray so far from it. That's why, no matter how much selective breeding people may apply, you'll never see a strawberry as big as a watermelon... Or a dog the size of an elephant.
No matter how much wishful thinking one wants to apply the evidence doesn't support the Darwinian account.

However there were elephants the size of big dogs. They occurred on islands in the Mediterranean. Pigmyisation is a common result of isolating creatures in small habitats.
http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/topicimages/d/dw/dwarf_elephant.gif
Dwarf elephants were once part of the Pleistocene (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pleistocene) fauna of all the larger Mediterranean islands, with the apparent exception of Corsica. Mediterranean dwarf elephants have generally been considered as paleoloxodontine, derived from the continental Straight-tusked Elephant, Elephas (Palaeoloxodon) antiquus Falconer & Cautley, 1847. An exception is the dwarf Sardinian Mammoth, Mammuthus lamarmorae (Major, 1883), the only endemic elephant of the Mediterranean islands belonging to the mammoth line. A DNA research published in 2006 theorized that the Elephas creticus could be from the mammoth line too. This old theory, proposed by Dorothea Bate as early as 1905, is not widely accepted. A scientific study of 2007 demonstrates the mistakes of the DNA research of 2006.


During low sea levels, the Mediterranean islands were colonised again and again, giving rise, sometimes on the same island, to several species (or subspecies) of different body sizes. These endemic dwarf elephants were taxonomically different on each island or group of very close islands, like the Cyclades archipelago. from:http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dwarf_elephant

downthecreek
04-14-2009, 10:09 AM
But it's fruit fly in and fruit fly out. It's no big deal to select for certain traits and thus artificially separate two kinds of the same species. But are they really different species? No. They are two varieties of the same species.

The question of species development through natural selection (as opposed to the development of traits within species) is addressed in a paper by Daniel Funk et. al. published amongst the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in (I think) February 2006. The conclusion was that "The Origin of Species" is well named.

If you have read the paper, perhaps you could submit your critique. If not, I suggest you may wish to do so.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 10:14 AM
...So, let's recall what you actually said:



Quite to the contrary. Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred.
What I do know is that the process was not Darwinian.
Sorry, but the evidence simply is not sufficient to support the Darwinian account.


First, there is remarkable confusion here between absence of proof and proof of absence. Looks like you're claiming that because you don't see sufficient evidence for Darwinism, you know the process was not Darwinian.

I know that in the usually understood sense of the word, "to have a practical understanding", and based on available evidence that the evolutionary process was not Darwinian. That's because there is no evidence for Darwinian Gradualism. Period.
Therefore, given the available evidence I know Darwin was wrong in the same way I know that a similar myth that of Deucalion and Pyrrha who scattered stones which grew into the Roman people is not the way it happened.
Got that?


But let's leave this aside for the moment, since it's a typical and common confusion of yours...

Perhaps I'm not the one here who's confused. I don't think that basing one's views on available and abundant evidence would normally be considered confusion.


I am interested in what do you mean by "some sort of evolution" that "almost certainly occurred" and at the same time was not Darwinian. What kind of evolution are we talking about?

Kaa

Since we're speaking of my own posted statements... What part of "agnostic" don't you understand.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2009, 10:18 AM
where are all the intermediate forms one would have to find in the fossil record to establish macro from micro...that must surely exist as we see X becoming everything else? Darwin noted they were lacking, and believed they would be found, noting they would have to be found for his theory to hold. 150 years later, we're still looking, and they're still lacking. This is incorrect. Darwin noted that they were lacking, and at the time he was right. In the intervening 150 years, many, many intermediate forms have turned up. The latest are early whales with legs. The best-studied are our own ancestors, where we have easily half a dozen "missing links", often with so much variation that we're hard put to tell which group to put them in; specialists argue endlessly over the finer points. An increasing number of intermediate forms as we look harder is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

And it's not true that fossils are rare. Fossils of larger animals are indeed rare, but fossils of small marine organisms are literally as common as dirt. They aren't as dramatic to study as dinosaurs, but they're everywhere. And in these cases, when fossils are abundant and people have looked closely, we do indeed see more or less continuous evolutionary sequences.

There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting speciation and evolution through natural selection. There is no one working in the field that questions this. There is nothing, not one piece of affirmative evidence that contradicts it.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-14-2009, 10:23 AM
Lets face it, Human spiritual evolution is just as slow as species evolution. We are at the beginning of the slow death of traditional religions. We don't worship the sun anymore either, or Thor, or Ra, etc etc etc. What Christianity had in its favour was the earthly appearance of its God, and a fairly well documented mythic tale surrounding it. I don't blame people for wanting to believe that there is something beyond life besides the worms eating your corpse. That said, I believe there is something beyond.... but I also think it will be quite different that what we have imagined. I don't know what it is.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 10:24 AM
Unfortunately, there's no way to do that for the aforementioned bat. There are no half bats. And there's no possible way that a 1/2 bat - a bat with too-small wings & unable to fly could conceivably be competitively more fit than one not so equipped.


So, is Sam a believer in intelligent design? One of the more easily discredited alternatives to evolution.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 10:30 AM
The question of species development through natural selection (as opposed to the development of traits within species) is addressed in a paper by Daniel Funk et. al. published amongst the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in (I think) February 2006. The conclusion was that "The Origin of Species" is well named.

If you have read the paper, perhaps you could submit your critique. If not, I suggest you may wish to do so.

Having read Origin I thought Darwin did a dandy job explaining the extinction of species, but provided no evidence for the mechanism for their origin.
That conclusion remains unchallenged... of course, if you managed to provide a link or some other way of actually seeing the article I might be persuaded by Mr. Funk's no doubt cogent analysis.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2009, 10:33 AM
So, is Sam a believer in . . . If you have the patience to hang around WBF evolution discussions for long enough, you will notice that that Sam never, ever, proposes any alternative to evolution through natural selection. Never. If he did that, it would be subject to testing and scrutiny like any other hypothesis.

Kaa
04-14-2009, 10:33 AM
What part of "agnostic" don't you understand.

I don't understand the part where you said "Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred." That's hardly an agnostic statement, is it now?

You, ahem, know that this evolution was not Darwinian. So what kind was it? What is it that "almost certainly occurred"?

Kaa

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 10:39 AM
Having read Origin I thought Darwin did a dandy job explaining the extinction of species, but provided no evidence for the mechanism for their origin.
That conclusion remains unchallenged... of course, if you managed to provide a link or some other way of actually seeing the article I might be persuaded by Mr. Funk's no doubt cogent analysis.

Hi Sam, a quick Google found this starter for ten:http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/518301/

Sam F
04-14-2009, 10:42 AM
This is incorrect. Darwin noted that they were lacking, and at the time he was right. In the intervening 150 years, many, many intermediate forms have turned up....

No. Many, many, many, new species have turned up. One does not see the infinitesimal small changes morphing one species into another that Darwinian Gradualism predicts.


And it's not true that fossils are rare.

That's correct. In places one can't even move without stepping on fossils.


Fossils of larger animals are indeed rare, but fossils of small marine organisms are literally as common an dirt. They aren't as dramatic to study as dinosaurs, but they're everywhere. And in these cases, when people have looked closely, we do indeed see more or less continuous evolutionary sequences.


The best anyone here has managed to post is a rather equivocal sequence of Forams which lacked enough data to be even remotely convincing.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 10:43 AM
If you have the patience to hang around WBF evolution discussions for long enough, you will notice that that Sam never, ever, proposes any alternative to evolution through natural selection. Never. If he did that, it would be subject to testing and scrutiny like any other hypothesis.
I defer to your experience;) and admire your patience. I do also wonder why he uses up so much band width if he really is not interested in cogent debate.:confused:

Keith Wilson
04-14-2009, 10:44 AM
. . . which lacked enough data to be even remotely convincing.To Sam. Others may disagree.

downthecreek
04-14-2009, 10:47 AM
Hi Sam, a quick Google found this starter for ten:http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/518301/

Thanks - good for a start.

I read the original some time ago and have neither the time nor the inclination to root around for it now. Sam is ill-informed. If he really wants to correct that, no doubt he will make the effort.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't understand the part where you said "Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred." That's hardly an agnostic statement, is it now?

Gee... Agnostic means "don't know" To know that "Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred" is a very long way from knowing how.
You do see that, don't you?


You, ahem, know that this evolution was not Darwinian.
I know it in the same way I know that the myth of Deucalion and Pyrrha is not supported by evidence. There is no evidence for Darwinian Gradualism. Period.

Kaa
04-14-2009, 11:11 AM
Gee... Agnostic means "don't know" To know that "Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred" is a very long way from knowing how.
You do see that, don't you?

However you used the word "evolution", did you not? Presumably you chose that particular word and not, say, "change" or "transformation" because it expressed the meaning you tried to convey. And all I am asking you is to elucidate that meaning.

What did you mean by the word "evolution" when you said "Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred"?

Kaa

Sam F
04-14-2009, 11:12 AM
Hi Sam, a quick Google found this starter for ten:http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/518301/

Thanks for the link. Note the parts in bold:

The reason for his doubt was the incompleteness and lack of uniformity of ecological data. “There are all these species out there and so few of them are known in intimate detail, so any kind of ecological characterization, through no fault of ecologists, will be limited in accuracy and precision,” Funk says.

Nevertheless, the researchers decided to do the best they could with the information available. So they collected information from the published literature on three basic ecological variables: habitat, diet and size. Then they used this information to calculate the differences in ecological adaptation between the hundreds of pairs of related species in the original studies.

When they compared these differences in adaptation with the degree of reproductive isolation for each pair and then added them up, the researchers found that the overall association was positive with a surprisingly high level of confidence: The odds that the association is simply due to chance are only one in 250, substantially higher than the standard confidence level of one chance in 20 that scientists demand.

“The fact that the association is statistically significant despite the crudeness of our estimates suggests that the true biological association is very strong,” Funk says. “Darwin’s famous book was called ‘On the Origin of Species,’ but it was really about natural selection on traits rather than species formation. Since our study suggests that natural selection is a general cause of species formation, it seems that Darwin chose an appropriate title after all.”

"Incomplete and lack of uniformity in the data" - "crudeness of our estimates"? Sounds like a classic SWAG.
Now I'm not surprised that closely related species were found to be closely related... Who would be?
But that proves Darwinian Evolution? I don't think so!

Then Mr. Funk agrees with me by saying: “Darwin’s famous book was called ‘On the Origin of Species,’ but it was really about natural selection on traits rather than species formation."
That's a very odd way of disproving what I said, don't you think?

Sam F
04-14-2009, 11:17 AM
However you used the word "evolution", did you not? Presumably you chose that particular word and not, say, "change" or "transformation" because it expressed the meaning you tried to convey. And all I am asking you is to elucidate that meaning.

What did you mean by the word "evolution" when you said "Some sort of evolution almost certainly occurred"?

Kaa

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Pretty much everything except the last couple of definitions ...

Kaa
04-14-2009, 11:19 AM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Pretty much everything except the last couple of definitions ...

So, this meaning: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory" -- it is fine with you?

Kaa

Sam F
04-14-2009, 11:20 AM
To Sam. Others may disagree.

No one not already wedded to the belief in Darwinian Evolution would find the evidence presented here convincing.

There's no doubt you are a true believer... and I'm not.
But I remain open to the Darwinian conception - Indeed I was a convinced Darwinist until only a few years ago. But then I'm by nature a skeptic and you're not. ;)

Sam F
04-14-2009, 11:23 AM
So, this meaning: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory" -- it is fine with you?

Kaa

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The evidence indicates that various life-forms share a familial relationship.
But, the "distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations", aka Gradualism, lacks supporting evidence.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 11:27 AM
Sam, you keep on referring to "Darwinian gradualism" as being unsupported by evidence. Do you believe then that Niles Eldredge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge) and Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould)'s proposal of punctuated equilibrium disproved Darwin's work?

Tom Montgomery
04-14-2009, 11:30 AM
So, is Sam a believer in intelligent design? One of the more easily discredited alternatives to evolution.
Yes he is. He is particularly enamored of William Dembski who was, not long ago, a member of the faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary here in Louisville.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 11:32 AM
Yes he is. He is particularly enamored of William Dembski who was, not long ago, a member of the faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary here in Louisville.

Sad man, futility personified.:(

Kaa
04-14-2009, 11:35 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The evidence indicates that various life-forms share a familial relationship.
But, the "distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations", aka Gradualism, lacks supporting evidence.

So, let's see.

You think that various life forms developed from each other, but not gradually. In this way new species abruptly appear (and you have no idea how or why), continue for some time in an essentially unchanged form, and then die out through mechanisms adequately described by Darwin.

Is that a fair summary of your views?

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
04-14-2009, 11:36 AM
Dembski was replaced at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by the prominent Creationist Kurt Wise. Dembski is now on the faculty of the Southwestern Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Both seminaries are operated by the Southern Baptist Convention.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 11:42 AM
Dembski was replaced at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by the prominent Creationist Kurt Wise. Dembski is now on the faculty of the Southwestern Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Both seminaries are operated by the Southern Baptist Convention.

Just a goddarned minute, I thought Sam was a Catholic? Whats he doing consorting with those nonconformist Baptists?:D

Glen Longino
04-14-2009, 11:49 AM
"Southern Baptist Convention"
America's largest Protestant body...42,000 churches...16 million members, according to wikipedia.
No wonder I feel surrounded, Tom! How about you?:D

downthecreek
04-14-2009, 12:35 PM
No wonder I feel surrounded, Tom! How about you?:D

Hey, Mr. Longino - I forgot to tell you......

You and I are insignificant by-products of the cosmos - sorry about that.....

Oh, and I don't know who told you God had thumbs, but, really, he doesn't. I'm so sorry to disrupt your innocent faith, but we all have to face it sometime.....:)

Kaa
04-14-2009, 12:38 PM
Oh, and I don't know who told you God had thumbs, but, really, he doesn't.

Of course He doesn't. You don't see any thumbs in this authentic image of Him, do you?

http://bp3.blogger.com/_nne_be7w6wk/RhNIQlUQ0GI/AAAAAAAAAII/Uo3P7aV3Izg/s400/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

:D

Kaa

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 12:40 PM
Oh, and I don't know who told you God had thumbs, but, really, he doesn't. I'm so sorry to disrupt your innocent faith, but we all have to face it sometime.....:)
Doesn't She, how then did She mold the clay? Or pull out that rib?

Sam F
04-14-2009, 01:17 PM
Sam, you keep on referring to "Darwinian gradualism" as being unsupported by evidence. Do you believe then that Niles Eldredge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge) and Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould)'s proposal of punctuated equilibrium disproved Darwin's work?

In a previous discussion with Mr. Wilson he convinced me that "It's ALL Gradualism."
Perhaps you ought to take that issue up with him.

Peerie Maa
04-14-2009, 01:24 PM
No Sam, I'd rather have you answer the question put.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 01:32 PM
So, let's see.

You think that various life forms developed from each other,

I said a "familial relationship".


but not gradually.

Let's be precise about terms here - Gradualism is not the same thing as "gradually". There is no evidence for Gradualism.


In this way new species abruptly appear

That's what they appear to do in the fossil record.


(and you have no idea how or why)

I don't know how - that's how many times have I said that?
As to "why". Oh dear! I thought teleology has no place in science. :D


...continue for some time in an essentially unchanged form, and then die out

That's what the fossil record shows.


...through mechanisms adequately described by Darwin.

By definition, species that are unfit won't survive.

Sam F
04-14-2009, 01:33 PM
No Sam, I'd rather have you answer the question put.

It's "all Gradualism".
What more do you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium?