PDA

View Full Version : Evolution Debate



bob b
January 29th, 2006, 12:04 PM
I thought I would start a thread disussing some of the key tactics used in the evolution debates.

Here is one for starters:


ATTACKING THE MESSENGER

There is another characteristic element in litigation that also appears repeatedly in the evolution debates: the ad hominem denigration of the representatives of the other side, and the assertion that the opponent said things he or she didn’t really say. In litigation, lawyers regularly seize upon any action by the other side’s lawyers that can he characterized as evidence that the lawyer is deceitful, incompetent, confused, or acting in bad faith. The goal is to get the judge to discount the credibility of the other side’s spokesman. Anyone who delves into the books, articles, and internet postings in the evolution debate will see instantly who employs these kinds of tactics and who does not.
From Teaching the Flaws in Evolution by Edward Sisson, an article in the collection of articles comprising the book Uncommon Dissent.

`Love.
January 29th, 2006, 12:07 PM
WHERE ARE THOSE APE LOVERS!?!? :madmad:

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 12:37 PM
I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

Lord Vader
January 29th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Hmmm, denigrating the others character to cause an audience to discount their credibility... yes, I see what you mean.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 12:58 PM
No, I'm just trying to understand the thought process. Either way you look at it, God is lying to us. Its a catch 22.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 01:06 PM
I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science?

If science is wrong why would that reflect on God?


Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

In light of the fact that God told us through His word what He did, by what kind of warped logic do you conclude that it is God's fault that some in effect call Him a liar?


Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis.

But I have a different interpretation of that same emprical data.


Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong.

Correct. Either the Bible was inspired by God to be an infallible record of His word or science is able to speak infallibly about unwitnessed events in the past.

The question for Christians is: Which option do you have more faith in?

I used to have unswerving faith in everything said by scientists untill 22 years ago when I started to read about DNA and it dawned on me like a ton of bricks that the area of science known as Origins was different than "science of the present", that which I had dealt with my entire professional career.

DNA and all that goes with it in the cell was the key which freed me from the lie of evolution and later caused me to revisit the Bible which I had rejected during my college years. Since I discovered 22 years ago that evolution could not according to scientific principles possibly be true, the scientific evidence against evolution (the primitive protocell to Man variety) has been accumulating rapidly.


The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

Incorrect. The most important part is that God is infallibly reliable and humans are not, because humans were given free will to choose and one cannot do this unless it is possible for humans to choose wrongly.

`Love.
January 29th, 2006, 01:12 PM
I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

There are a few evidences that show evolution might be plausible. Even the ones given for evolution fit easily into creation, whereas visa versa is not true. Evolution is not considered by even today's top scientists as a FACT. They know they can't prove it. Evolution is just a case of The Emperor's New Clothes. :cow:

There is NO God vs Science debate here. It's God vs Darwin.

Lynn73
January 29th, 2006, 01:17 PM
I thought I would start a thread disussing some of the key tactics used in the evolution debates.

Here is one for starters:

Well, Kent Hovind says there are about 500 anti-Hovind sites so yeah one of their tactics is to attack the messenger when they don't like the message. Of course, I know there are Christians who disagree with Hovind but the point still is some evolutionists go after the one bringing the message.

Jimmy West
January 29th, 2006, 01:19 PM
I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

Evolution is a THEORY. It has nothing to do with the accuracy or credibility of science. What makes it a theory is that it can not be proven beyond doubt.

Lynn73
January 29th, 2006, 01:21 PM
I just don't understand people that say that if science sheds light on something, it means that God would be lying in the bible. That works both ways though.

If the creation account is literal, doesn't this show that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laugh about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint. I think its crazy.

Here's the thing: Present scientific models, based on empirical data, indicate that the world came about in a different way than described in Genesis. Either the creation account is figurative or science is wrong. The most important part of the story is that God created the universe and depending on your interpretation, man chose to sin, or metaphorically, man was naturally created fallible and thats why we all make mistakes.

Maybe it isnt' the data that's bogus. Maybe it's man's interpetation of it that's bogus. Especially the interpretation of those who desperately attempt to make the evidence fit evolution and those who ignore data who doesn't fit what they want. The Bible says that Satan is the one who is a liar and the father of it, not God.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 01:23 PM
If science is wrong why would that reflect on God?
Because God created everything.


In light of the fact that God told us through His word what He did, by what kind of warped logic do you conclude that it is God's fault that some in effect call Him a liar?

How can you prove that God is speaking to us through an ancient text, and that the writers were not simply inspired by Him?


But I have a different interpretation of that same emprical data.
How is this even possible? You think man purposely created the fossils that date back to 10,000 years ago? If God created man 4000 years ago how the heck is it man's doing that these fossils are here?




. It's God vs Darwin

No, its not Darwin's just one guy. Besides there was another guy who theorized natural selection around the time of Darwin and never even met Darwin. His name escapes me, I will have to look it up.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 01:25 PM
Evolution is a THEORY. It has nothing to do with the accuracy or credibility of science. What makes it a theory is that it can not be proven beyond doubt.

Relativity? You don't see me time traveling.

Theory in science doesn't mean what you think it means.

What makes it a theory is that there is evidence to support it.

If there wasn't, it would be a hypothesis.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Maybe it isnt' the data that's bogus. Maybe it's man's interpetation of it that's bogus. Especially the interpretation of those who desperately attempt to make the evidence fit evolution and those who ignore data who doesn't fit what they want. The Bible says that Satan is the one who is a liar and the father of it, not God.

And what about the interpretation of those who desperately attempt to make the evidence fit creation and those who ignore data that doesn't fit what they want?

`Love.
January 29th, 2006, 01:30 PM
No, its not Darwin's just one guy. Besides there was another guy who theorized natural selection around the time of Darwin and never even met Darwin. His name escapes me, I will have to look it up.

Ok, it's God vs Darwin w/ a bunch of other idiots.

I can make my own theory and play with my evidence so it all fits, it's not that hard. That's why we don't run off on theories. :rolleyes:

See, there were these rabbits a million, trillion, billion years ago and they made little eggs (later became the start of Easter) and one of those eggs blew up and made Earth and the surrounding planets. Then a little flower appeared on the ground and the giant bunny came to pick it, and The Spirit of Creativity came out. The Spirit of Creativity with help from the bunny, made everything the way it is now.

PROVE ME WRONG!!!! :D

:kookoo:

`Love.
January 29th, 2006, 01:32 PM
Relativity? You don't see me time traveling.

Theory in science doesn't mean what you think it means.

What makes it a theory is that there is evidence to support it.

If there wasn't, it would be a hypothesis.

So? The theory of relativity is still a theory and has room for error. Just because the Theory of Relativity was made by a sane man doesn't mean they all are.

Lord Vader
January 29th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Ok, it's God vs Darwin w/ a bunch of other idiots.

I can make my own theory and play with my evidence so it all fits, it's not that hard. That's why we don't run off on theories. :rolleyes:

See, there were these rabbits a million, trillion, billion years ago and they made little eggs (later became the start of Easter) and one of those eggs blew up and made Earth and the surrounding planets. Then a little flower appeared on the ground and the giant bunny came to pick it, and The Spirit of Creativity came out. The Spirit of Creativity with help from the bunny, made everything the way it is now.

PROVE ME WRONG!!!! :D

:kookoo:

Not a theory.

Lord Vader
January 29th, 2006, 01:40 PM
So? The theory of relativity is still a theory and has room for error. Just because the Theory of Relativity was made by a sane man doesn't mean they all are.

That's a lot o' insane biologists and physicists.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 02:00 PM
Incorrect. The most important part is that God is infallibly reliable and humans are not, because humans were given free will to choose and one cannot do this unless it is possible for humans to choose wrongly.


Much like Christians believe man is fallen and inherently sinful and thus cannot objectively tell truth from falsehood? "You've got flies in your eyes. That's why you can't see them."


edited to add: God is indeed infallible, but you are not. That means there is a chance you might be wrong.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 02:02 PM
See, there were these rabbits a million, trillion, billion years ago and they made little eggs (later became the start of Easter) and one of those eggs blew up and made Earth and the surrounding planets. Then a little flower appeared on the ground and the giant bunny came to pick it, and The Spirit of Creativity came out. The Spirit of Creativity with help from the bunny, made everything the way it is now.

PROVE ME WRONG!!!!


How is that a theory? What data do you have to support this? That is some alternate reality that you dreamed about. I suppose it could be some kind of hypothesis, but you have no empirical evidence to support this.


I can play this game too. The Bible was actually written by a unicorn. All other histories have been faked.

You can't prove it wrong.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 02:08 PM
BTW, how's our emperical data for God coming along?

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 02:23 PM
Because God created everything.

Do you think that God created evil?



How can you prove that God is speaking to us through an ancient text, and that the writers were not simply inspired by Him?

Because Jesus Christ validated what they said.



How is this even possible? You think man purposely created the fossils that date back to 10,000 years ago?

Fossils can not be "dated" unless they contain unmineralized organic material. Whenever unmineralized organic material (like wood) is found in a sedimentary layer thought to be millions of years old and dated by C-14 it invariably dates to around 33,000 years ago. This is well within the accuracy of the Genesis account considering the probable changes in cosmic radiation and other environmental factors not normally considered when the testing lab produces a "date".

Fossils are found entombed in sedimentary layers. "Sedimentary" means water-laid so that these layers are basically dried mud. This is why the layers cannot be dated either.


If God created man 4000 years ago how the heck is it man's doing that these fossils are here?

The date is 4 or 5 thousand years BC, which translates to 6 or 7 thousand years ago.


not Darwin's just one guy. Besides there was another guy who theorized natural selection around the time of Darwin and never even met Darwin. His name escapes me, I will have to look it up.

No creationist I know denies some small role of Natural Selection in aiding the small changes that lead to adaptation (bacterial/insecticide resistence). The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't. The fossil record is further proof that they don't.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 02:28 PM
Because Jesus Christ validated what they said.

This proves nothing.

I am a very avid reader. I love sci-fi/fantasy series. The longer the series the better. One of the things I absolutely abhor is when a series is not consistant within itself. If it says one thing in the first book, then something that does not go along with that in the eighth, I put that book down. Although I have put down a lot of books/series over the years, I have also found quite a few that are internally consistant. For example, I am currently reading Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time. I just finished the eleventh book, and all has been consistant. I found a few places where I thought it was not until I thought about it and realized that it was not the book being inconsistant, but the characters in the book being inconsistant, as part of their personalities, and part of their flaws. If you read further, you will see that this trips them up later on. This series now is close to, I would say, something like 15,000 pages.

Now, what this has to do with this thread....

If someone can write a series that is 15,000 pages, and growing, and be perfectly consistant, then someone can completely make up the Bible and have it be consistant. This is not to say the Bible is wrong, of course. I am just saying that saying Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies does not really mean anything.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 02:37 PM
This proves nothing.

I am a very avid reader. I love sci-fi/fantasy series. The longer the series the better. One of the things I absolutely abhor is when a series is not consistant within itself. If it says one thing in the first book, then something that does not go along with that in the eighth, I put that book down. Although I have put down a lot of books/series over the years, I have also found quite a few that are internally consistant. For example, I am currently reading Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time. I just finished the eleventh book, and all has been consistant. I found a few places where I thought it was not until I thought about it and realized that it was not the book being inconsistant, but the characters in the book being inconsistant, as part of their personalities, and part of their flaws. If you read further, you will see that this trips them up later on. This series now is close to, I would say, something like 15,000 pages.

Now, what this has to do with this thread....

If someone can write a series that is 15,000 pages, and growing, and be perfectly consistant, then someone can completely make up the Bible and have it be consistant. This is not to say the Bible is wrong, of course. I am just saying that saying Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies does not really mean anything.

You are absolutely correct.

The consistency with one another of the different books of the Bible proves that they had one ultimate author, the One who inpired them.

On the other hand there is no historian on the face of the Earth who believes that the author of the Bible was a single human being. They hold this belief this because of the historical evidence.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 02:37 PM
The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't. The fossil record is further proof that they don't.

First, it seems like you have this idea in your mind that evolution is heading towards some purpose and that organisms should be getting more and more complex as time goes on. That is not true however. Evolution works like this. We all have DNA which pretty much determines everything about us. Sometimes this DNA gets randomly mutated. The organism isn't like, 'hmm, I could really use some wings' but wings have to happen by chance through genetic mutation. Sometimes genetic mutation is good, sometimes it is bad and sometimes it is neutral. A bad mutation might end up killing the animal before it reproduces. A good mutation might make the animal reproduce more. And because genes are passed on the good genes have a greater chance at getting passed on. Sometimes a creature will have a great mutation that would make it a super organism but before it can reproduce it is randomly eaten by a shark.

Evolution is completely random, there is no purpose to it.

A fish does not suddenly get up one day and start walking on land. It takes an incredibly long time. We have historical records dating back around 10000 years max. but 10000 years in the grand scheme of the earth is like 0.00025% of the earth's history.

You do realize that evolution is not "bacteria turning into humans", right? If a bacteria transformed into a human, that would disprove evolution.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 02:37 PM
You are absolutely correct.

The consistency with one another of the different books of the Bible proves that they had one ultimate author, the One who inpired them.

On the other hand there is no historian on the face of the Earth who believes that the author of the Bible was a single human being. They hold this belief this because of the historical evidence.

But you can't PROVE that a supernatural being inspired them.

You hold a religious belief that says so and finding a contradiction in the Bilble is like finding historical inaccuracies in Shakespeare.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 02:43 PM
First, it seems like you have this idea in your mind that evolution is heading towards some purpose and that organisms should be getting more and more complex as time goes on. That is not true however. Evolution works like this. We all have DNA which pretty much determines everything about us. Sometimes this DNA gets randomly mutated. The organism isn't like, 'hmm, I could really use some wings' but wings have to happen by chance through genetic mutation. Sometimes genetic mutation is good, sometimes it is bad and sometimes it is neutral. A bad mutation might end up killing the animal before it reproduces. A good mutation might make the animal reproduce more. And because genes are passed on the good genes have a greater chance at getting passed on. Sometimes a creature will have a great mutation that would make it a super organism but before it can reproduce it is randomly eaten by a shark.

Evolution is completely random, there is no purpose to it.

A fish does not suddenly get up one day and start walking on land. It takes an incredibly long time. We have historical records dating back around 10000 years max. but 10000 years in the grand scheme of the earth is like 0.00025% of the earth's history.

You do realize that evolution is not "bacteria turning into humans", right? If a bacteria transformed into a human, that would disprove evolution.

Do you believe that the fossil record shows a progression from simple to complex?

If that is not progress what is?

Evolutionsts pass along this lie without realizing how easily it can be demonstrated that it is a lie. They deceive themselves and pass on the "favor" by deceiving others.

They believe because they have faith that it is true, whatever their unknown mental motivation.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 02:52 PM
But you can't PROVE that a supernatural being inspired them.

You hold a religious belief that says so and finding a contradiction in the Bilble is like finding historical inaccuracies in Shakespeare.

We prove it by the same scientific methodology which permits a judge and/or jury to determine that a literary work has been plagerized.

It is not credible to believe that close to a hundred books, written by different authors over a period of thousands of years happen to be perfectly consistent with one another by accident. It would have taken an enormous "conspiracy" to have fooled all historians of such things, particularly since many books of the Bible could be reconstructed if they suddenly disappeared because of the many quotations contained in different writings of other authors living in comparable time periods.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 03:06 PM
tjguitar,

You show obvious signs of being a troll, which on the internet is short for a person who poses as one who believes in one thing but actually believes in another. people do this for various reasons I suppose. Some I have caught do this to Christians to see how we would try to bring awavering Christian back into the fold of believers.

In your case you may have betrayed your real motivation when you insisted that evolution is random and has no purpose, yet God must have been using evolution as His method of creation.

There seems to be contradiction here, because if humans are not the result of God's purpose then how much of scripture besides Genesis must we also discard?

For this and other reasons I am beginning to doubt that you are a Christian at all.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 03:09 PM
We prove it by the same scientific methodology which permits a judge and/or jury to determine that a literary work has been plagerized.

It is not credible to believe that close to a hundred books, written by different authors over a period of thousands of years happen to be perfectly consistent with one another by accident. It would have taken an enormous "conspiracy" to have fooled all historians of such things, particularly since many books of the Bible could be reconstructed if they suddenly disappeared because of the many quotations contained in different writings of other authors living in comparable time periods.

There is just as much evidence to support that it is a conspiracy, you choose to put more weight on the evidence that supports your beliefs.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 03:13 PM
There seems to be contradiction here, because if humans are not the result of God's purpose then how much of scripture besides Genesis must we also discard?

Ever heard of theistic evolution?

All it means is God is the one that caused the big bang....the first particle had to come from somewhere.

Do you really think that "true" faith entails believing the Bible verbatim and thus knowing God is lying to us through the natural world?




There seems to be contradiction here, because if humans are not the result of God's purpose then how much of scripture besides Genesis must we also discard?

You can't possibly know God's purpose. You can only know your understanding thereof.

Everything is relative.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 03:26 PM
Ever heard of theistic evolution?

All it means is God is the one that caused the big bang....the first particle had to come from somewhere.

Do you really think that "true" faith entails believing the Bible verbatim and thus knowing God is lying to us through the natural world?




You can't possibly know God's purpose. You can only know your understanding thereof.

Everything is relative.

You are flying under a false flag. You are not a Christian. A Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, was crucified died and was buried and on the 3rd day rose from the dead.

Benjamin Frankin was not a Christian; he was a theist: someone who believes in God, but not the God of the Bible.

You apparently are a theist (or a troll). Trolls' purpose seems to be to disrupt things.

BTW, we can determine at least some parts of God's purpose through reading the Bible.

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 03:37 PM
And how do you decide whose interpetation of the Bible is a correct one? Just because you share the view of the early church fathers doesn't mean you are correct.

Being a Christian does not give you the right to tell other Christians what to do AND believe that YOU and YOU alone are right, just because you're a Christian/You're an older Christian/You are more "spiritual"/You read the Bible more.

Uh, and someone very well can believe in Christ was crucifed, died and was buried and still take the creatoin account figuratively.

The Bible is a collection of laws, histories, poetry, teachings, prophesying, letters, and apocalyptic literature written over thousands of years and compiled hundreds later. To make any general statement about it is difficult.

Like all poetry, you wouldn't take the poetic books in the Bible (e.g. Psalms, Job) literally. You can still derive some spiritual insight from them generally, but the particulars are not necessarily being presented as facts. Similarily, apocalyptic literature (e.g., much of Daniel, Revelation) can very deliberately use symbols to refer to contemporary events. Even if you don't accept this interpretation of apocalyptic literature, the alternative is that apocalyptic literature uses symbols to show what has yet to be seen. Again, spiritual wisdom may be generally drawn from these books, but to accept the particulars as facts is absurd at best.

Jesus often speaks in parables and even riddles throughout the Gospels. His teachings are authentic, but the parables cannot be taken at face value. Writers often use metaphors, symbols, and similar literary devices to elaborate on points. It would not be right to take these passages literally.

For more ambiguous things, such as the creation account, I recommend considering whether it's consisent with what you know about reality. While the world may not have been created in six days and even the most devout Christian still gets burned when he touches a stove burner and can't so much as make a mountain shift a little, I don't think anything is detracted from the spiritual message.

Finally, if you were speaking God's word, you would never be so fast to bring down condemnation upon another person. You'd be challenging them to change their ways, you already quit, but you have the time to tell them they're going to hell. I pity you, because you are off track.

Johnny
January 29th, 2006, 04:16 PM
What I always find interesting is that creationists who know better or should know better (OEJ, Bob, Yorzhik) don't come in and speak out against people like 'Love and lynn73 for making their camp look like complete buffoons. If there were an evolutionist here who was that scientifically inept I wouldn't think twice about shutting him up. Its all part of the free pass mentality here I guess.

And while we're on debate tactics of "evolution" debates, perhaps everyone would be interesting in seeing the debate tactics of one of the more popular creationists here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24327). Re-defining words, false-accusations, false-dilemmas, non-sequitors, baseless accusations, unsupportable claims, bad science, and one loud mouth..its all there.

noguru
January 29th, 2006, 06:05 PM
What I always find interesting is that creationists who know better or should know better (OEJ, Bob, Yorzhik) don't come in and speak out against people like 'Love and lynn73 for making their camp look like complete buffoons. If there were an evolutionist here who was that scientifically inept I wouldn't think twice about shutting him up. Its all part of the free pass mentality here I guess.

And while we're on debate tactics of "evolution" debates, perhaps everyone would be interesting in seeing the debate tactics of one of the more popular creationists here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24327). Re-defining words, false-accusations, false-dilemmas, non-sequitors, baseless accusations, unsupportable claims, bad science, and one loud mouth..its all there.

Yes why is it that as long as people like Love and lynn73 are toeing the party line of YECism then Bob and others like him don't find a need to point out their inaccuracies? :think:

Yorzhik
January 29th, 2006, 06:33 PM
What I always find interesting is that creationists who know better or should know better (OEJ, Bob, Yorzhik) don't come in and speak out against people like 'Love and lynn73 for making their camp look like complete buffoons. If there were an evolutionist here who was that scientifically inept I wouldn't think twice about shutting him up. Its all part of the free pass mentality here I guess.

And while we're on debate tactics of "evolution" debates, perhaps everyone would be interesting in seeing the debate tactics of one of the more popular creationists here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24327). Re-defining words, false-accusations, false-dilemmas, non-sequitors, baseless accusations, unsupportable claims, bad science, and one loud mouth..its all there.
I don't think you'll find that is true. Recently when Bob Hill, who is loved be me and many others here, no one was unclear about disagreeing that they didn't think the SLoT started at the fall.

But I don't give that kind of courtesy to every poster, whether they are creationist or evolutionist. Most of the time I, and I would guess this is true of other posters, are responding to a specific person and side-tracking to correct someone else, whether they are trying to help or not, just takes too much time. If you ask about a specific view, I don't think I would hesitate to state a view contrary to to other creationists.

BTW, after ThePhy helped noguru on his view of the SLoT (whether it was my requests that he do so or out of the goodness of his heart) I can't say I have used this accusation lately because of it.

noguru
January 29th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Do you think that God created evil?

Yes.

2 Kings 22:16

"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:"

Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."



Because Jesus Christ validated what they said.

Yes, he did. Are you saying that he did not validate parts of scripture that contained figures of speach, metaphors, and literary devices?

Ezekiel 20:49
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?

Matthew 13:3
And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;


Matthew 13:10
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?


Matthew 13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.


Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:


Matthew 13:35
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.


Matthew 13:53
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.


Matthew 21:45
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.


Matthew 22:1
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,


Mark 3:23
And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?


Mark 4:2
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,


Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:


Mark 4:13
And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?


Mark 4:33
And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.


Mark 12:1
And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.


Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.




No creationist I know denies some small role of Natural Selection in aiding the small changes that lead to adaptation (bacterial/insecticide resistence). The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't. The fossil record is further proof that they don't.

Again you show you show your ignorance with science. Science is not about "proofs". That is mathematics. Those who do science, compile and analyse evidence. Then they create models (hypothesis, theories) to explain the evidence. Please explain how the fossil record is evidence against the naturalistic old earth single form common descent model and evidence for your supernatural young earth multiple forms model.

noguru
January 29th, 2006, 06:45 PM
I don't think you'll find that is true. Recently when Bob Hill, who is loved be me and many others here, no one was unclear about disagreeing that they didn't think the SLoT started at the fall.

But I don't give that kind of courtesy to every poster, whether they are creationist or evolutionist. Most of the time I, and I would guess this is true of other posters, are responding to a specific person and side-tracking to correct someone else, whether they are trying to help or not, just takes too much time. If you ask about a specific view, I don't think I would hesitate to state a view contrary to to other creationists.

BTW, after ThePhy helped noguru on his view of the SLoT (whether it was my requests that he do so or out of the goodness of his heart) I can't say I have used this accusation lately because of it.

He did it because I was innacurate in my understanding. And instead of having me be an embarassment to myself and others who accept the naturalistic model of science, he corrected my misunderstanding. He even admitted why he did it in that same post.

And it wasn't my view of SLoT that was confused. It was the interaction of other forces in nature and SLoT. I said that The First Law, Relativity, gravity... can reverse SLoT. That was an innacurate representation of what really happens. The truth is that your claim that SLoT is the ultimate force of nature and wins out over all other forces was also inaccurate. But you were unwilling to accept that.

bob b
January 29th, 2006, 09:18 PM
noguru,

On the misunderstanding regarding "God creating evil"
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun:—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

Raah is often translated “evil” in a poetic sense, just as we would consider the destructive power of a hurricane to be a “calamity” and hence “evil” in that poetic way. A hangman creates “evil” or a “calamity” for the one who is hanged, but if done to bring justice is not “evil” in the sense of the hangman being evil. In the same way God is not evil for bringing justice to evildoers. Try substituting “calamity” (a synonym) for “evil” in your cited passages to get the correct sense of what is being said.

For example The Contemporary version of the Bible translates Isa 45:7:

I form light and create darkness,
I make harmonies and create discords.
I, God, do all these things.

And 2 Kings 22:16 is rendered:

Tell the man who sent you here that I’m on my way to bring the doom of judgment on this place and this people. Every word written in the book read by the king of Judah will happen. And why? Because they’ve deserted me and taken up with other gods, made me thoroughly angry by setting up their god-making businesses. My anger is raging white-hot against this place and nobody is going to put it out.

-----

You have sinned against God by carelessly accusing Him of creating evil, probably by following the lead of someone who is not a strong believer.

CAUSASIAN
January 29th, 2006, 09:26 PM
Evolution is a lie.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

tjguitar
January 29th, 2006, 10:51 PM
Evolution is a lie.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

yippee we can post links to biased sources cause we have no idea what we are talking about.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 03:55 AM
noguru,
Raah is often translated “evil” in a poetic sense, just as we would consider the destructive power of a hurricane to be a “calamity” and hence “evil” in that poetic way. A hangman creates “evil” or a “calamity” for the one who is hanged, but if done to bring justice is not “evil” in the sense of the hangman being evil. In the same way God is not evil for bringing justice to evildoers. Try substituting “calamity” (a synonym) for “evil” in your cited passages to get the correct sense of what is being said.

You have sinned against God by carelessly accusing Him of creating evil, probably by following the lead of someone who is not a strong believer.

This is exactly how I meant "evil". Why how did you mean it? And I did not say God was evil. I said that he created evil. There is a difference you know. Just because God created something does not mean he is defined by that thing. I hope you can see the difference.

And I am not following anyones lead here. I came to this conclusion on my own by reading the Bible. I have no idea what you are trying to say by your last sentence, but the sentiment seems entirely uncalled for.

In fact, I saw this same quote used by another "strong believing" fundamentalist on this site when he was supporting his own notion of God creating evil. Only in his post he meant it as sins that man commited due to Adams fall. And I knew this line did not support that use of it.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 06:26 AM
Evolution is a lie.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

From the first link here is a couple of Quotes:

"The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism:
Darwinism and Materialism"

"ISLAM IS NOT THE SOURCE OF TERRORISM, BUT ITS SOLUTION"

So I guess these suicide bombers from 911 were fixated on darwinism and materialism when they crashed the planes into thier targets?

None were islamic? I guess they didn't use the Q'uran to justify thier actions, they were using "The Origin of Species"?

Lynn73
January 30th, 2006, 07:24 AM
And what about the interpretation of those who desperately attempt to make the evidence fit creation and those who ignore data that doesn't fit what they want?

It really doesn't bother me what some scientists say the evidence says or what it appears to say to some. I'm going to believe the Bible regardless. Men are fallible, God isn't. As has been pointed out, evolution is a theory, not proven fact.

Mr Jack
January 30th, 2006, 07:33 AM
As has been pointed out, evolution is a theory, not proven fact.

No, it's a theory and a proven fact. Which you'd know if you weren't so determined to remain ignorant.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 08:21 AM
No, it's a theory and a proven fact. Which you'd know if you weren't so determined to remain ignorant.

I think this is inaccurate. Science does not prove things in the same way the legal system does or like mathematical proofs. It is like the legal system in that the evidence can lead us to a level approaching absolute. In science nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but we can have evidence that brings us to level beyond reasonable doubt.

With that being said, the evidence for the "theory" of evolution is close if not already at the level beyond reasonable doubt. The only people who seem to deny this are those like Lynn73 who don't want to know or understand the evidence. Or people like Bob B who would like to rewrite science to fit thier preconcieved ideas about the level figurative speech in Genesis.

koban
January 30th, 2006, 08:34 AM
I think this is inaccurate. Science does not prove things in the same way the legal system does or like mathematical proofs. It is like the legal system in that the evidence can lead us to a level approaching absolute. In science nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but we can have evidence that brings us to level beyond reasonable doubt.

With that being said, the evidence for the "theory" of evolution is close if not already at the level beyond reasonable doubt. The only people who seem to deny this are those like Lynn73 who don't want to know or understand the evidence. Or people like Bob B who would like to rewrite science to fit thier preconcieved ideas about the level figurative speech in Genesis.


Gotta be careful here - aspects of the evolutionary theory have been proven to be "factual" - organisms have been shown to change over time, genetically linked differences that enhance survivablilty have been shown to be passed down to offspring, natural selection is a no-brainer, etc.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 08:43 AM
Gotta be careful here - aspects of the evolutionary theory have been proven to be "factual" - organisms have been shown to change over time, genetically linked differences that enhance survivablilty have been shown to be passed down to offspring, natural selection is a no-brainer, etc.

I agree. I was speaking about the aspects that are still in contention. What Bob likes to call "paramecium to paramedic" evolution.

avatar382
January 30th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Evolution is a THEORY. It has nothing to do with the accuracy or credibility of science. What makes it a theory is that it can not be proven beyond doubt.

To say that evolution is only a theory is like saying a car is only a Cadillac. The word "theory" is actually a complement in science terminology.

Mr Jack
January 30th, 2006, 09:15 AM
I think this is inaccurate. Science does not prove things in the same way the legal system does or like mathematical proofs. It is like the legal system in that the evidence can lead us to a level approaching absolute. In science nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but we can have evidence that brings us to level beyond reasonable doubt.

That is so. I still maintain Evolution is a proven fact as much as anything in science is. I'd also say that scientific evidence is considerable more convincing that legal proof.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 09:26 AM
That is so. I still maintain Evolution is a proven fact as much as anything in science is. I'd also say that scientific evidence is considerable more convincing that legal proof.

Well you may have a point there Mr. Jack.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 12:19 PM
Watch yourself there Mr. Jack. According to noguru anyone who talks about "proof" doesn't know anything about science. ;)

And as far as scientific evidence is concerned I agree with you that it is very convincing, for it was the scientific evidence which first convinced me that evolution (molecules to man) wasn't true!.

Yorzhik
January 30th, 2006, 01:01 PM
He did it because I was innacurate in my understanding. And instead of having me be an embarassment to myself and others who accept the naturalistic model of science, he corrected my misunderstanding. He even admitted why he did it in that same post.

And it wasn't my view of SLoT that was confused. It was the interaction of other forces in nature and SLoT. I said that The First Law, Relativity, gravity... can reverse SLoT. That was an innacurate representation of what really happens. The truth is that your claim that SLoT is the ultimate force of nature and wins out over all other forces was also inaccurate. But you were unwilling to accept that.
You were doing so well until the last sentence. Actually, ThePhy agrees with my view, or more accurately I with his.

aharvey
January 30th, 2006, 02:41 PM
Well, Kent Hovind says there are about 500 anti-Hovind sites so yeah one of their tactics is to attack the messenger when they don't like the message. Of course, I know there are Christians who disagree with Hovind but the point still is some evolutionists go after the one bringing the message.
Please note that, even if one accepts Hovind’s rather self-serving numbers, the fact that a site disagrees with Hovind’s writings does not mean they are attacking him and not his message!!! Just because I disagree with you for saying something does not mean I’m guilty of “attacking the messenger”! “Attacking the messenger” specifically refers to the following situation:

Person A makes statement B.
Person C criticizes some aspect of person A, says nothing about statement B, and then implies that statement B is incorrect because of what was said about the person who made it.

A more specific example:

Person A claims “bold statements do not make a claim true.”
Person B scornfully retorts that person A lost a debate on evolution to a radio talk show host.


Evolution is a THEORY. It has nothing to do with the accuracy or credibility of science. What makes it a theory is that it can not be proven beyond doubt.
No, what makes evolution a scientific theory is that it provides an explanation for a broad range of observations and phenomena. The ability to be proven beyond doubt has nothing to do with it.


Ok, it's God vs Darwin w/ a bunch of other idiots.

I can make my own theory and play with my evidence so it all fits, it's not that hard. That's why we don't run off on theories. :rolleyes:

See, there were these rabbits a million, trillion, billion years ago and they made little eggs (later became the start of Easter) and one of those eggs blew up and made Earth and the surrounding planets. Then a little flower appeared on the ground and the giant bunny came to pick it, and The Spirit of Creativity came out. The Spirit of Creativity with help from the bunny, made everything the way it is now.

PROVE ME WRONG!!!! :D

:kookoo:
From this I’m not sure which side of the argument you are on! Creationists seem to constantly forget that making up a story is not all there is to scientific inquiry. First, the hypothesis has to at least have a rational basis to it (which the above does not). Next, the hypothesis is tested by comparing its predictions to the available evidence, and generating new predictions to be tested. Creationists are singularly uninterested in this all-important step. They neither care how well evolutionary theory fares at explaining existing data or how well it generates new predictions, and supports these as well, and they get positively apoplectic at the prospect of themselves having to come up with a theory that explains or predicts anything nontrivial.

fool
January 30th, 2006, 03:13 PM
The consistency with one another of the different books of the Bible proves that they had one ultimate author, the One who inpired them.

Or, it could mean that out of all the ancient writings on the topic only the ones that agreed with each other were allowed into the cannon.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 03:42 PM
THE “PERRY MASON” BURDEN OF PROOF:
HAVING TO FIND THE “REAL CULPRIT”

A key issue in any litigation is who bears the burden of proof and just what that burden requires. Particularly with respect to the theory of unintelligent evolution, scientists do not approach challenges to the theory with the impartiality and sincerity that the scientific method is supposed to require of them. Instead, as noted above, scientists approach such challenges with the assumption that the reigning unintelligent evolution theory prevails if there is any reasonable understanding of observed data that can make the data consistent with the theory. This is the same mental process as that employed by a lawyer who seeks to interpret all of the data as evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion. The burden is on the challenger.
But this problem is small compared to the fact that in science, unlike law, a significant new element is added to that burden. As noted above, the science establishment will not abandon a theory unless some scientist shows not only that certain of the data cannot reasonably be understood as being consistent with the theory, but also that the data supports some new theory. To recall Stephen Jay Gould, “theories are overthrown by rival theories,” not by demonstrations that the accepted theories ought never to have become accepted in the first place. This too, is part of the sociology of science. The history of science demonstrates that because of career dynamics, individuals attain prominence, prestige, and position by advocating and convincing others in the scientific establishment of the validity of new or existing theoretical explanations, data, and observations. As sociologist Robert K. Merton stated almost fifty years ago, “On every side, the scientist is reminded that it is his role to advance knowledge” and to “have made genuinely original contributions to the common stock of knowledge.”23
This burden of proof in science is far greater than the burden of proof in law. To analogize, the “reigning theory” is that advanced by the prosecution, while the defense counsel’s job is to rebut that theory. But in law, unlike science, the defense counsel need not offer an alternate theory to explain the facts that led to the prosecution. While Perry Mason always exposes the real killer in the process of acquitting his client, real defense lawyers almost never provide the real culprit in order to get their clients off the hook. In law, the practitioner can have a very successful career as defense counsel by simply proving that prosecution theories are unsupported by the data; he need not go on to prove alternative theories. The defense lawyer can quite happily admit complete ignorance as to who is the real culprit.
Not so in science. No scientist sees a career advantage in proclaiming not only that the scientific establishment is ignorant of the truth, but that he or she is also ignorant. Indeed, as science writer Stephen Mihm commented in a March 9, 2003, Washington Post Book World review of the book Rational Mysticism, the “scientific” community … is understandably reluctant to concede defeat (in general it’s a poor strategy for getting grants).” Thus, science thrusts upon challengers the burden of offering an alternative theory before it will abandon the prevailing theory, despite all mathematical, logical, and evidentiary challenges to that theory.
What this means is that not only is the burden of proof on challengers immeasurably higher in science than in law, but there are also distinct and powerful career disincentives for anyone to take on the “defense counsel” role of disproving the flawed paradigm. Why should anyone do it when there is no reward for success? The scientific establishment, by demanding that those who challenge its theories must produce workable alternatives, is demanding that the defense counsel either produce “the real culprit” or else the jury must accept the prosecution’s case. This imposes an unfair burden of proof that, if it were applied in law, would require every defense lawyer to be as effective as the fictional Perry Mason. No wonder reigning scientific paradigms are so rarely abandoned.

The above is from the same source which opened this thread.

Highline
January 30th, 2006, 04:50 PM
We prove it by the same scientific methodology which permits a judge and/or jury to determine that a literary work has been plagerized.

It is not credible to believe that close to a hundred books, written by different authors over a period of thousands of years happen to be perfectly consistent with one another by accident. It would have taken an enormous "conspiracy" to have fooled all historians of such things, particularly since many books of the Bible could be reconstructed if they suddenly disappeared because of the many quotations contained in different writings of other authors living in comparable time periods.

Of course it is credible that the books written by different authors would have similar themes and be consistent in other ways, because the authors were all part of the same oral society. They probably also communicated in letters that were not saved. The inconsisitencies are also explained. If your and my grandfathers witnessed an event 80 years ago and told their families about it, you and I might write the same story down. The stories would have consistencies and differences, just like the gospels. You can't say they are "perfectly consistent."

SteveG.
January 30th, 2006, 05:24 PM
The theory of evolution should not be considered a threat to Christian belief in particular or theistic/deistic faith in general. I don't see a necessary conflict between the Genesis account and the broad elements of the theory. Sure, there are interesting areas to debate, but the theory is sound and has withstood the test of time and intense scientific scrutiny. Again, I see no conflict between essential Christian faith and science in general or the theory of evolution in particular. Time to move on to more important stuff.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 05:44 PM
Watch yourself there Mr. Jack. According to noguru anyone who talks about "proof" doesn't know anything about science. ;)

And as far as scientific evidence is concerned I agree with you that it is very convincing, for it was the scientific evidence which first convinced me that evolution (molecules to man) wasn't true!.

I already addressed that Bob.

And his comments are quite different than yours. You claimed that the fossil record proves that evolution is false. I pointed out that the fossil record is just one of the many evidences that support it. I asked you to explain your conclusion that fossil record is evidence against evolution and evidence for YECism. You did not do this and your comments show a fundamental misunderstanding or at worst a misrepresentation regarding the evidence and the science around it. When I corrected Mr Jack he explained which aspects he felt were "proven" via human observation. Those aspect include only what you would term as micro-evolution or adaption. Your use of the term proven is just a bluff to make your case seem more robust. Mr Jack admitted that macro-evolution or as you would call it "bacteria to ballerina" evolution has not been directly observed. However, he did point out that the evidence we have makes that explanation a more robust argument than the arguments and evidence used in many court cases.

Perhaps you should go back and read the prior posts. :)

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 05:46 PM
You were doing so well until the last sentence. Actually, ThePhy agrees with my view, or more accurately I with his.

That's not how I remember it. In clearing up my misunderstanding of these issues ThePhy also nullified the thrust of your argument. Of course, you would never admit that. :bang:

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 06:53 PM
Of course it is credible that the books written by different authors would have similar themes and be consistent in other ways, because the authors were all part of the same oral society. They probably also communicated in letters that were not saved. The inconsisitencies are also explained. If your and my grandfathers witnessed an event 80 years ago and told their families about it, you and I might write the same story down. The stories would have consistencies and differences, just like the gospels. You can't say they are "perfectly consistent."

1. There is no evidence that the authors of the Old Testament were part of the same oral society.

2. If people wrote letters to one another then the society would not have been an oral one.

3. The books of the Old Testament were written over a period of at least a thousand years.

4. There is no evidence that the authors knew one another or had access to the parchments of the other author.

5. The stories do have different points of view (as do the Gospels, written far more recently).

6. The consistency of the ideas in these different books by different authors in different eras is unprecedented in the history of literature. Normally different cultures as well as different eras have differing ideas. The culture of today has different ideas from the culture of only 100 years ago.

However, I do realize that you have already made up your mind and will not change it regardless of the facts.

I write only because some readers may still have open minds, and thus may be able to make a judgment based on the facts of the matter.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 07:06 PM
1. There is no evidence that the authors of the Old Testament were part of the same oral society.

2. If people wrote letters to one another then the society would not have been an oral one.

3. The books of the Old Testament were written over a period of at least a thousand years.

4. There is no evidence that the authors knew one another or had access to the parchments of the other author.

5. The stories do have different points of view (as do the Gospels, written far more recently).

6. The consistency of the ideas in these different books by different authors in different eras is unprecedented in the history of literature. Normally different cultures as well as different eras have differing ideas. The culture of today has different ideas from the culture of only 100 years ago.

However, I do realize that you have already made up your mind and will not change it regardless of the facts.

I write only because some readers may still have open minds, and thus may be able to make a judgment based on the facts of the matter.

Bob, I do agree that the ideas in the OT are very consistent. I am not sure how consistent in relationship to other religious texts, because I have not studied other texts as much as the OT. I do think Highline has a point in that the culture that started with Adam was consistently surrounded by and influenced by the first to the last writings in the OT for the thousand years of its history. Whether that be through reading the texts or hearing oral citings of the text.

I think Highline's point about the oral tradition is based on the assumption that most people back then were illiterate. Yes, some of the upper echelon people of society did write to one another and read historical and contemporary documents. However, this does not change the fact that most of the evidence we have points to a society or culture that was majoritavely illiterate, hence the oral tradition.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 07:20 PM
I already addressed that Bob.

And his comments are quite different than yours. You claimed that the fossil record proves that evolution is false. I pointed out that the fossil record is just one of the many evidences that support it. I asked you to explain your conclusion that fossil record is evidence against evolution and evidence for YECism.

The fossil record is being discussed in the detail the subject deserves in another thread. You have provided no detail whatsoever except to say that the fossil record provides evidence to support it. In contrast I have offered the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. Again. Please use the "Fossil Record" thread if you want to seriously debate this issue.


You did not do this and your comments show a fundamental misunderstanding or at worst a misrepresentation regarding the evidence and the science around it.

I would think such serious charges require something more than what you have provided so far. You wouldn't be engaging in the "Shoot the Messenger" tactic by any chance would you, instead of sticking to evidences?


When I corrected Mr Jack he explained which aspects he felt were "proven" via human observation. Those aspect include only what you would term as micro-evolution or adaption. Your use of the term proven is just a bluff to make your case seem more robust. Mr Jack admitted that macro-evolution or as you would call it "bacteria to ballerina" evolution has not been directly observed. However, he did point out that the evidence we have makes that explanation a more robust argument than the arguments and evidence used in many court cases.

A court would properly throw out any evidence that was based on the argument used by evolutionists to support macroevolution, namely, demanding that anyone who is skeptical tell them "so please present evidence why we can't extrapolate small changes that we can see to the ones we can't possibly see because they take too long?"

In case you failed to read it, I just finished today (a few posts back) posting a long description of the disingenuous tactic evolutionists use to shift the burden of proof from themselves to anyone who questions the absurd idea that all life descended from a primitive hypothetical protocell. Apparently we must present proof that this couldn't happen instead of them having to show some logical reasoning and evidence that it did.

So now we have two deceptive tactics that evolutionists use in debating, (1) Shoot the messenger and (2) Shift the burden of proof from the one presenting a theory to the one challenging the theory. There are of course many more such deceptive tactics and I will shortly post the next one in the long series of them.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 07:38 PM
The fossil record is being discussed in the detail the subject deserves in another thread. You have provided no detail whatsoever except to say that the fossil record provides evidence to support it. In contrast I have offered the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. Again. Please use the "Fossil Record" thread if you want to seriously debate this issue.



I would think such serious charges require something more than what you have provided so far. You wouldn't be engaging in the "Shoot the Messenger" tactic by any chance would you, instead of sticking to evidences?



A court would properly throw out any evidence that was based on the argument used by evolutionists to support macroevolution, namely, demanding that anyone who is skeptical tell them "so please present evidence why we can't extrapolate small changes that we can see to the ones we can't possibly see because they take too long?"

In case you failed to read it, I just finished today (a few posts back) posting a long description of the disingenuous tactic evolutionists use to shift the burden of proof from themselves to anyone who questions the absurd idea that all life descended from a primitive hypothetical protocell. Apparently we must present proof that this couldn't happen instead of them having to show some logical reasoning and evidence that it did.

So now we have two deceptive tactics that evolutionists use in debating, (1) Shoot the messenger and (2) Shift the burden of proof from the one presenting a theory to the one challenging the theory. There are of course many more such deceptive tactics and I will shortly post the next one in the long series of them.

So you say Bob. However, the evidence does not back up your claim.

We are both presenting theories, are we not. You are deceptive because you do not hold up your own theory to the critical analyses that use for the naturalistic explanation. This is above and beyond all of the other nit-picking complaints that you have, the most disingenous and intellectually dishonest tactics that I have witnessed. I have presented the evidence that the scientific community has compiled many time to you. You simply use you strategy of plausible deniability.

At any rate, how can you expect to offer a competing model for the naturalistic model if you are so secretive about your model. You should be glad to demonstrate its explanatory strength. Instead you just piss and moan at how unfair those "evilutionists" are. Then start another thread criticizing the naturalistic model without shinning that light of reason on your own model.

At this point I am tired of your tactics and I have to go to work. Have a nice night Bob. :wave2:

koban
January 30th, 2006, 07:38 PM
1. There is no evidence that the authors of the Old Testament were part of the same oral society.

2. If people wrote letters to one another then the society would not have been an oral one.

3. The books of the Old Testament were written over a period of at least a thousand years.

4. There is no evidence that the authors knew one another or had access to the parchments of the other author.

5. The stories do have different points of view (as do the Gospels, written far more recently).

6. The consistency of the ideas in these different books by different authors in different eras is unprecedented in the history of literature. Normally different cultures as well as different eras have differing ideas. The culture of today has different ideas from the culture of only 100 years ago.

However, I do realize that you have already made up your mind and will not change it regardless of the facts.

I write only because some readers may still have open minds, and thus may be able to make a judgment based on the facts of the matter.


Bob - when do you think the Hebrew scriptures coalesced and what was the process?

No Worries
January 30th, 2006, 07:43 PM
One must note in response to bob's thread remarking on the consistency of the OT that the writing styles vary. Not highlighting different authors but a mark up in awareness. Julian Jaynes noted in 1976 that uber-consciousness began to assert itself with the dawning of increased social complexity. Man needed to empathise more and so his conscious mind developed. This is noted in a turn around in approach according to the times current with ecclestiases. It is also the time of the first noted suicide, a characteristic side effect of developed self awareness. Similiar, but earlier, passages of development are noted in cave paintings. From simple snapshots of history evolving into story telling episodes, a development of the human mind. Fast forwarding into the old testament similiar developments can be seen. The development of Satan's characteristics of that in Job to later on when he takes on a different persona. In the psychiatric/psychological world this has grown in support. Initial Jaynes received little recognition, nowadays he holds the majority of support.

In short the style of writing changes in the way people are perceived as understanding and expressing themselves. The earlier writers wrote with a certain perspective, the later wrote with an entirely different one. One that earlier humans had not yet developed. And so to say that the writings are divine is to say that the authors developed as humans did, suggesting that such writings are not divinely influenced, and even if they are to be considered so, the human witnesses were not capable of communicating it across.

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived OR man is seen to evolve.

In this sense the OT supports evolution.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Bob, I do agree that the ideas in the OT are very consistent. I am not sure how consistent in relationship to other religious texts, because I have not studied other texts as much as the OT. I do think Highline has a point in that the culture that started with Adam was consistently surrounded by and influenced by the first to the last writings in the OT for the thousand years of its history. Whether that be through reading the texts or hearing oral citings of the text.I think Highline's point about the oral tradition is based on the assumption that most people back then were illiterate.

The "oral tradition" idea was an outgrowth of 19th century thinking that was still being taught when I was in my youth. It said essentially that "Moses could not have written the Torah because writing had not been invented yet".

But within a few years there were great discoveries by archeologists which pushed the date of first writing back thousands of years before Moses. Yet the "oral tradition" idea still hangs on and is popularized heavily today because it fits the general pattern of "progress" and "primitive man" which is so compatible with the evolutionary hypothesis.


Yes, some of the upper echelon people of society did write to one another and read historical and contemporary documents. However, this does not change the fact that most of the evidence we have points to a society or culture that was majoritavely illiterate, hence the oral tradition.

Even if the majority of the society was illiterate, that is immaterial, because it would be the literate whose ideas would be passed on to future generations, not those of the illiterate. The "oral tradition" idea became obsolete as soon as it was discovered that writing was not a recent invention as previously thought. You and others would be wise to drop your support for this "dead horse".

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 08:12 PM
One must note in response to bob's thread remarking on the consistency of the OT that the writing styles vary. Not highlighting different authors but a mark up in awareness. Julian Jaynes noted in 1976 that uber-consciousness began to assert itself with the dawning of increased social complexity. Man needed to empathise more and so his conscious mind developed. This is noted in a turn around in approach according to the times current with ecclestiases. It is also the time of the first noted suicide, a characteristic side effect of developed self awareness. Similiar, but earlier, passages of development are noted in cave paintings. From simple snapshots of history evolving into story telling episodes, a development of the human mind. Fast forwarding into the old testament similiar developments can be seen. The development of Satan's characteristics of that in Job to later on when he takes on a different persona. In the psychiatric/psychological world this has grown in support. Initial Jaynes received little recognition, nowadays he holds the majority of support.

In short the style of writing changes in the way people are perceived as understanding and expressing themselves. The earlier writers wrote with a certain perspective, the later wrote with an entirely different one. One that earlier humans had not yet developed. And so to say that the writings are divine is to say that the authors developed as humans did, suggesting that such writings are not divinely influenced, and even if they are to be considered so, the human witnesses were not capable of communicating it across.

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived OR man is seen to evolve.

In this sense the OT supports evolution.

There are several things regarding your posting that seem speculative to me. For example:

1. Stylistic writing - are you assuming that all writers in a particular era write with the same consistent style?

2. Isn't it true that some of the authors had different positions in society than others?

3. Did I say that the writings were divine? How would that work considering that the writers were humans?

4. Wouldn't it more reasonable to consider that the Divine would inspire ideas rather than styles?

5. There appear to be rather modern ideas in the scriptures, something that would be hard for people of the past to do. For example: [1] expansion of the heavens, [2] circulation of the oceans, [3] intricate formation in the womb, [4] importance of inheritance (Noah's was perfect), [5] a revolving Earth, etc. Others have developed dozens if not hundreds more such examples.

What does it take to convince a skeptic that there was something strange and unique going on with these writings ranging in authorship from Kings to fishermen to sheep herders and covering a time span over a thousand years?

No wonder Jesus marvelled at those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel !!

No Worries
January 30th, 2006, 08:23 PM
There are several things regarding your posting that seem speculative to me. For example:

1. Stylistic writing - are you assuming that all writers in a particular era write with the same consistent style?

2. Isn't it true that some of the authors had different positions in society than others?

3. Did I say that the writings were divine? How would that work considering that the writers were humans?

4. Wouldn't it more reasonable to consider that the Divine would inspire ideas rather than styles?

5. There appear to be rather modern ideas in the scriptures, something that would be hard for people of the past to do. For example: [1] expansion of the heavens, [2] circulation of the oceans, [3] intricate formation in the womb, [4] importance of inheritance (Noah's was perfect), [5] a revolving Earth, etc. Others have developed dozens if not hundreds more such examples.

What does it take to convince a skeptic that there was something strange and unique going on with these writings ranging in authorship from Kings to fishermen to sheep herders and covering a time span over a thousand years?

No wonder Jesus marvelled at those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel !!

By style it is meant, and clearly stated, that the authors wrote not in different types of language or personallity but they were displaying different progressive levels of human awareness and interaction. Think of it in colours. The first could only see red so to him describing something 'blue' would just be another shade of red. The second could see red and blue, so described both. The third would then see red, blue and green. The earlier authors could not express certain things, it was written as they could only see shades of one colour. There is an evolved pattern of higher awareness and morality. Turn a blind eye to it if you want but psychologists and psychiatrists have readily acknowledged it in the main.

If you read into it it also explains the evolving religion. Hezekiah was the one that truly ent out and set one God and this is explained in pattern with the breakdown of the consciousness of the bicameral mind that is shown to pre-exist.

By the divine inspiring ideas would fall on death ears. How do you describe blue to somebody that can only see, and has only ever seen, red.

Station, origin or education of the author is neither here nor there. That is irrelevant to the argument. The intial point remains:

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired OR man is seen to evolve.

Choose.

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 08:34 PM
The "oral tradition" idea was an outgrowth of 19th century thinking that was still being taught when I was in my youth. It said essentially that "Moses could not have written the Torah because writing had not been invented yet".

I never assumed that Moses couldn't write. In fact I assumed that he was literate. After all he was raised as part of the pharoahs court. I always thought writing went back to at least 6,000 years.



But within a few years there were great discoveries by archeologists which pushed the date of first writing back thousands of years before Moses. Yet the "oral tradition" idea still hangs on and is popularized heavily today because it fits the general pattern of "progress" and "primitive man" which is so compatible with the evolutionary hypothesis.

The oral tradition I was speaking of is only in relationship to the discontinuous nature that you stressed regarding the writers of the Bible. IOW, even if there was a discontinuous connection of those who wrote the Bible, this would have been connected by the illiterate masses that spread these ideas from place to place and nation to naiton.



Even if the majority of the society was illiterate, that is immaterial, because it would be the literate whose ideas would be passed on to future generations, not those of the illiterate. The "oral tradition" idea became obsolete as soon as it was discovered that writing was not a recent invention as previously thought. You and others would be wise to drop your support for this "dead horse".

No it is not immaterial in regard to the point I was making. You misinterpreted what I was saying, yet again. I guess old habits die hard.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 09:36 PM
I never assumed that Moses couldn't write. In fact I assumed that he was literate. After all he was raised as part of the pharoahs court. I always thought writing went back to at least 6,000 years.

So what. As soon as the archeologists discovered that writing predated Moses, that knowledge became generally known. Oddly, the idea that the books in the Bible were based on stories passed down orally persisted, probably because of the growing belief in evolution with the implication that earlier people were primitive, not like us moderns.


The oral tradition I was speaking of is only in relationship to the discontinuous nature that you stressed regarding the writers of the Bible. IOW, even if there was a discontinuous connection of those who wrote the Bible, this would have been connected by the illiterate masses that spread these ideas from place to place and nation to naiton.

So the illiterate masses were the ones that God inspired and should properly be credited as the writers of the stories instead of the authors who actually wrote them down?


No it is not immaterial in regard to the point I was making. You misinterpreted what I was saying, yet again. I guess old habits die hard.

You said that it was important to note that most of the society was not literate. I said that this was immaterial unless you believed that the illiterate are the ones which pass stories down instead of the literate.

But your logic would not make sense in explaining the Bible unless you would then conclude that stories passed down orally by the illiterate would have some value to us who read them today. You can't have it both ways, because it would be far more difficult to believe that cohesive and God-breathed books would emerge by way of a process of being passed down through oral tradition of illiterate masses as opposed to inspiration by God to individuals who were capable of writing inspired thoughts down so that this inspiration could be transmitted faithfully down through the ages.

bob b
January 30th, 2006, 09:50 PM
By style it is meant, and clearly stated, that the authors wrote not in different types of language or personallity but they were displaying different progressive levels of human awareness and interaction. Think of it in colours. The first could only see red so to him describing something 'blue' would just be another shade of red. The second could see red and blue, so described both. The third would then see red, blue and green. The earlier authors could not express certain things, it was written as they could only see shades of one colour. There is an evolved pattern of higher awareness and morality. Turn a blind eye to it if you want but psychologists and psychiatrists have readily acknowledged it in the main.

If you read into it it also explains the evolving religion. Hezekiah was the one that truly ent out and set one God and this is explained in pattern with the breakdown of the consciousness of the bicameral mind that is shown to pre-exist.

By the divine inspiring ideas would fall on death ears. How do you describe blue to somebody that can only see, and has only ever seen, red.

You take the speculations of men (like psychologists and psychiatrists ) way too seriously.

I will admit that in this regard it helps that I am old enough to remember the writings of other generations and hence can note that ideas so speculative and poorly supported by evidence (e.g. Freud and Jung) tend to come and go with the tides.


Station, origin or education of the author is neither here nor there. That is irrelevant to the argument. The intial point remains:

Either the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired OR man is seen to evolve.

Choose.

First let me analyze the choices you gave me.

#1) the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired

#2) man is seen to evolve

Hmm. Wait a minute. Are these the only two choices? ;)

noguru
January 30th, 2006, 11:10 PM
So what. As soon as the archeologists discovered that writing predated Moses, that knowledge became generally known. Oddly, the idea that the books in the Bible were based on stories passed down orally persisted, probably because of the growing belief in evolution with the implication that earlier people were primitive, not like us moderns.

I don't think it had anything to do with evolution. But like you said this concept is false and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.




So the illiterate masses were the ones that God inspired and should properly be credited as the writers of the stories instead of the authors who actually wrote them down?


No Bob, you are missing the point. The literate upper echelon authored these writings since they were the only ones capable of writing. Some of the revelations probably came from these literate people. Some of the revelations might have come through illiterate people. Are you claiming that God only revealed himself through inspiration to literate people? Because, I am not claiming that he favored either group. I am simply pointing out that those stories could have only been written down by literate people. We don't know if all the stories originated with the literate people, we only know that they must have been written down by literate people.

Also and more importantly, I am pointing out that the people who could not read spread these stories, whether they originated from illiterate or literate sources, by word of mouth. Once the stories were written down they were most likely also told to the illiterate masses. The illiterate masses together with the discontinuous literate elite would have in effect created an unbroken connection that would have facilitated the consistency of the OT as a whole. IOW, the verbal exchanges would have connected the dots between the discontinuous literate authors. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.



You said that it was important to note that most of the society was not literate. I said that this was immaterial unless you believed that the illiterate are the ones which pass stories down instead of the literate.

I am saying that both groups had a part in it. But again you seem to be missing the point. The illiterate masses were certainly involved with and in the traditions of the OT. How can you claim that they were not?



But your logic would not make sense in explaining the Bible unless you would then conclude that stories passed down orally by the illiterate would have some value to us who read them today. You can't have it both ways, because it would be far more difficult to believe that cohesive and God-breathed books would emerge by way of a process of being passed down through oral tradition of illiterate masses as opposed to inspiration by God to individuals who were capable of writing inspired thoughts down so that this inspiration could be transmitted faithfully down through the ages.

Bob just like with most societies, both parties had a hand in it. I am saying that most likely the cohesiveness is due to both the discontinuous literate authors and the illiterate masses who followed the oral tradition, which together in effect created a continuous and therefore relatively consistent set of texts for the OT.

Yorzhik
January 31st, 2006, 12:38 AM
That's not how I remember it. In clearing up my misunderstanding of these issues ThePhy also nullified the thrust of your argument. Of course, you would never admit that. :bang:
We said the same thing so that nullified my argument? That doesn't follow.

noguru
January 31st, 2006, 12:59 AM
We said the same thing so that nullified my argument? That doesn't follow.

Well first off you didn't say the same thing. I said that other forces in nature reverse SLoT as a response to your original claim. Your original claim being that the universe is a closed system and that SLoT ultimately wins out over all other natural forces. You said I was wrong, but you weren't specific about how you thought I was wrong. You appealed to ThePhy. ThePhy informed me that my statement that "other forces reverse SLoT" was innacurate. Since SLoT only works in a closed system and these other forces are not confined to a closed system it is like comparing apples to oranges. It then came down to whether or not the universe is a closed system. ThePhy and many others pointed out that we can't possibly be certain either way on that issue, given what we know of the universe. This nullifies your original claim that SLoT is the ultimate force in nature and that it will win out in the end over all the other forces in nature.

Yorzhik
January 31st, 2006, 01:22 AM
noguru; Ah, no. That the universe is a closed system I haven't made a definitive decision yet, so I didn't say it was. It may not have mattered to the argument of evolution at the time, but just so you know you are wrong on that point as well. The entire argument against me was that the SLoT was reversed by other forces which I'm glad you admit you were wrong about.

noguru
January 31st, 2006, 01:28 AM
noguru; Ah, no. That the universe is a closed system I haven't made a definitive decision yet, so I didn't say it was. It may not have mattered to the argument of evolution at the time, but just so you know you are wrong on that point as well. The entire argument against me was that the SLoT was reversed by other forces which I'm glad you admit you were wrong about.

I don't care about appearing to be right or wrong, as long as you admit that you cannot know whether the universe is a closed system and this in essence nullifies the argument (I thought it was your argument, but I could have been wrong) that SLoT is the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces in the universe. Can we agree on that?

No Worries
January 31st, 2006, 08:03 AM
You take the speculations of men (like psychologists and psychiatrists ) way too seriously.

So do you when you assume man was beyond corruption when dealing with the bible.
Incidentally my generation too have heard of Jung and Freud. Their popularity may swing but it never seems to go away does it. Its all to easy for you to dismiss out of hand the works of some of the finest human minds.



First let me analyze the choices you gave me.

#1) the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired

#2) man is seen to evolve

Hmm. Wait a minute. Are these the only two choices?

Looking at your bible in this context, yes.

bob b
January 31st, 2006, 08:27 AM
I said:


First let me analyze the choices you gave me.
#1) the scriptures are not divinely conceived/inspired
#2) man is seen to evolve
Hmm. Wait a minute. Are these the only two choices?

to which you replied.


Looking at your bible in this context, yes.

Doesn't the Bible teach a different story? Perhaps you should reread what choices you presented to me.

#1 seems to be that "the Bible is not inspired", but wouldn't there be a #1B that "the Bible is inspired?

Likewise your #2 seems to be that "man is seen to have evolved", but wouldn't there be a #2B where "man is seen to not have evolved".

So there are 4 sets of combinations from which to choose.

I choose #1B and #2B. I believe the Bible was inspired and man did not evolve from an apelike ancestor.

Atheists apparently choose #1A and #2A.

Weak Christians, those having more faith in evolutionists than they do in God's inspiration of the Bible, choose one of the two remaining combinations.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 09:15 AM
The above is from the same source which opened this thread.
If anyone does ever bother to read “Teaching the Flaws in Neo-Darwinism” by Edward Sisson, please see if you have better luck than I had finding where he provided evidence to back up his copious accusations about the scurrilous behavior of evolutionists. Perhaps he, too, considers it to be "unproductive to spend time and effort" backing up one's accusations, since that would undoubtedly stanch the flow of said accusations!

No Worries
January 31st, 2006, 09:42 AM
I said:



to which you replied.



Doesn't the Bible teach a different story? Perhaps you should reread what choices you presented to me.

#1 seems to be that "the Bible is not inspired", but wouldn't there be a #1B that "the Bible is inspired?

Likewise your #2 seems to be that "man is seen to have evolved", but wouldn't there be a #2B where "man is seen to not have evolved".

So there are 4 sets of combinations from which to choose.

I choose #1B and #2B. I believe the Bible was inspired and man did not evolve from an apelike ancestor.

Atheists apparently choose #1A and #2A.

Weak Christians, those having more faith in evolutionists than they do in God's inspiration of the Bible, choose one of the two remaining combinations.

But the original post said that if it were inspired it would not written that way. The four options you extract only apply if you ignore the orginal posting.

bob b
January 31st, 2006, 11:32 AM
I don't care about appearing to be right or wrong, as long as you admit that you cannot know whether the universe is a closed system and this in essence nullifies the argument (I thought it was your argument, but I could have been wrong) that SLoT is the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces in the universe. Can we agree on that?

The SLoT argument when properly understood is not restricted to whether a system is closed or not.

If one invokes the "open" factor then one has to consider the nature (and effect) of any physical phenomena (such as the Sun's radiation) which might enter (or leave) the closed system from outside its boundary.

With this consideration the SLoT would apply with equal force to the "open" situation.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 11:50 AM
I said:



to which you replied.



Doesn't the Bible teach a different story? Perhaps you should reread what choices you presented to me.

#1 seems to be that "the Bible is not inspired", but wouldn't there be a #1B that "the Bible is inspired?

Likewise your #2 seems to be that "man is seen to have evolved", but wouldn't there be a #2B where "man is seen to not have evolved".

So there are 4 sets of combinations from which to choose.

I choose #1B and #2B. I believe the Bible was inspired and man did not evolve from an apelike ancestor.

Atheists apparently choose #1A and #2A.

Weak Christians, those having more faith in evolutionists than they do in God's inspiration of the Bible, choose one of the two remaining combinations.
Good show! Bob, you've demonstrated that you do have the ability to see thru a false dicotomy and crack it into smaller chunks. Will you stand with me and point out the fallacy of false dicotomy to Bob Enyart in regards to manganese nodules?

fool
January 31st, 2006, 11:58 AM
From here;
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=995035&postcount=138

noguru
January 31st, 2006, 03:26 PM
The SLoT argument when properly understood is not restricted to whether a system is closed or not.

If one invokes the "open" factor then one has to consider the nature (and effect) of any physical phenomena (such as the Sun's radiation) which might enter (or leave) the closed system from outside its boundary.

With this consideration the SLoT would apply with equal force to the "open" situation.

Yes Bob but in that case we must also consider all the other forces of nature as well. And since we only know that SLoT can lead to energy reaching equilibrium in a closed system, we cannot assume that this would also be the case in an open system.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 12:52 PM
Yes Bob but in that case we must also consider all the other forces of nature as well. And since we only know that SLoT can lead to energy reaching equilibrium in a closed system, we cannot assume that this would also be the case in an open system.

You seem to have misunderstood the argument.

As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 12:56 PM
Good show! Bob, you've demonstrated that you do have the ability to see thru a false dicotomy and crack it into smaller chunks. Will you stand with me and point out the fallacy of false dicotomy to Bob Enyart in regards to manganese nodules?

Certainly, if I agree that you are correct that it is a false dichotomy.

Please amplify your false dichotomy argument.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 12:58 PM
But the original post said that if it were inspired it would not written that way.

Why not?

Your original posting said


And so to say that the writings are divine is to say that the authors developed as humans did, suggesting that such writings are not divinely influenced, and even if they are to be considered so, the human witnesses were not capable of communicating it across.

Assuming your premise[s] to be true you then developed what fool agreed with me was a false dicotomy. Surely you can see that your 2 choice model depends critically on one's acceptance of your main underlying assumption, namely, that God could not have inspired the author of scripture.

And further it also has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the human authors "were not capable of communicating it [inspiration] across."

I do not accept your premises despite the fact that you have. You have even admitted that the first premise was only a "suggestion".

noguru
February 1st, 2006, 06:01 PM
You seem to have misunderstood the argument.

As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this.

It is not indifferent. When it crosses this boundary it is not longer isolated. There are other forcces at work. It is no longer SLoT as we know it. The formula to figure out what happens with the interaction between matter and the different forms of energy is so complex that noone can honestly predict what will ultimately happen in the universe. However, I know that because of your background you believe you are the best judge of this.

No Worries
February 1st, 2006, 06:10 PM
Why not?

Your original posting said....

....And further it also has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the human authors "were not capable of communicating it [inspiration] across."

I do not accept your premises despite the fact that you have. You have even admitted that the first premise was only a "suggestion".

If you want to ignore the scholars on human development then that is your stance. The fact is those that study these things have come to agree that man's expression changes. If God is universal then in communicating his teachings humans would be writing in an entirely different manner.

As it is weight from not only biblical texts but also those from outside Judaic-Christian realms all show the same progression in man's abilities. If this is the case, which it is, it shows that man was writing for himself and was not writing down what someone else was inspiring or saying.

The weight of evidence is against you as it is in the scientific evolutionary theatre but it is one more thing which postulates against your standing.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 06:55 PM
If you want to ignore the scholars on human development then that is your stance. The fact is those that study these things have come to agree that man's expression changes. If God is universal then in communicating his teachings humans would be writing in an entirely different manner.

The logic of this last sentence escapes me, as does the phrase "If God is universal". Our only knowledge of the Christian God comes from scripture. I know of nowhere in scripture where it states that inspired thoughts from God would be limited by the writing style of the human author. I would think that Truth could be communicated by God using the different writing styles of men and would not be dependent on which ones were employed.


As it is weight from not only biblical texts but also those from outside Judaic-Christian realms all show the same progression in man's abilities.

That sounds like a "fad" theory to me. Some educational institutions still depend on the teaching of the Greek classics, because they are still considered by many to be extremely valuable, as opposed to much of today's writings.


If this is the case, which it is, it shows that man was writing for himself and was not writing down what someone else was inspiring or saying.

Yes, but only if it is the case, which was the point I was questioning and which you have not established is true.


The weight of evidence is against you as it is in the scientific evolutionary theatre but it is one more thing which postulates against your standing.

Evidence has no weight ;) except in the minds of the ones who think it supports their argument. So far the only "evidence" I have seen from you are references to authors who have certain opinions that would be hard to uphold in a court of law.

Are you so opinionated that you actually think you can determine the ability or lack thereof of God to inspire authors to write down the essence of truths He wishes to communicate? What in the world does either writing style or the skill of the author have to do with that? He was being inspired by God for heaven's sake. :)
"With God all things are possible." Jesus Christ, as quoted in scripture.

noguru
February 1st, 2006, 07:11 PM
If this is the case, which it is, it shows that man was writing for himself and was not writing down what someone else was inspiring or saying.



Yes, but only if it is the case, which was the point I was questioning and which you have not established is true.


I believe that the NT and the OT are inspired by God. What they are however, is a collection of inspired writings by many different authors. Each of these writing reflects the biases - historical, cultural, and personal perspective of its authors. This much is evident. If it were that the writings were a word for word dication by God to his religious secretaries, then they would not reflect these historical, cultural and personal biases.

Yorzhik
February 2nd, 2006, 01:00 AM
I don't care about appearing to be right or wrong, as long as you admit that you cannot know whether the universe is a closed system and this in essence nullifies the argument (I thought it was your argument, but I could have been wrong) that SLoT is the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces in the universe. Can we agree on that?
The "SLoT being the ultimate force in the universe" is your bag. I'm sticking with science that has evidence.

noguru
February 2nd, 2006, 03:57 AM
The "SLoT being the ultimate force in the universe" is your bag. I'm sticking with science that has evidence.


What are you talking about? Your not fooling anyone but yourself. I am sticking with science that has evidence. It has nothing to do with "a bag". It is the conclusion ascertained through science. You're sticking with an explanation that has "the supernatural" to supplement your ignorance regarding science. Get a clue. :wave:

Yorzhik
February 2nd, 2006, 08:35 AM
What are you talking about? Your not fooling anyone but yourself. I am sticking with science that has evidence. It has nothing to do with "a bag". It is the conclusion ascertained through science. You're sticking with an explanation that has "the supernatural" to supplement your ignorance regarding science. Get a clue. :wave:
First, as evidenced by the earth not being a closed system because of the sun, having the universe as an open system does not help evo. Second, until there is evidence of the universe being an open system, I won't put as much stock in the idea as you do. Third, the amount of evidence that the SLoT will be reversed even if the universe is open is zero.

And by "your bag" I mean that your contention that we are saying that the SLoT is the ultimate law of the universe overriding all other forces is something or your own invention. It isn't born out in either our direct comments or in extrapolation of what we say about the law.

aharvey
February 2nd, 2006, 09:02 AM
First, as evidenced by the earth not being a closed system because of the sun, having the universe as an open system does not help evo. Second, until there is evidence of the universe being an open system, I won't put as much stock in the idea as you do. Third, the amount of evidence that the SLoT will be reversed even if the universe is open is zero.
Sorry to intrude (more than you know!), especially as you guys are arguing about what y'all said in a previous argument, but it almost sounds to me like one side (see above) has taken the position that SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system? Is this an accurate assessment of this position?

By the way, I'm assuming that "evo" is shorthand for something specifically relevant to biological evolution, not, say, "evolution of the universe," right? Otherwise, never mind!

bob b
February 2nd, 2006, 09:14 AM
It is not indifferent. When it crosses this boundary it is not longer isolated. There are other forcces at work. It is no longer SLoT as we know it.

What's this "we" stuff? (courtesy of Tonto)


The formula to figure out what happens with the interaction between matter and the different forms of energy is so complex that noone can honestly predict what will ultimately happen in the universe.

On the contrary, people can honestly predict that the universe is "running down". The ultimate "heat death" of the universe is a very common belief among scientists. Certainly these people should be considered honest.

Yorzhik
February 2nd, 2006, 01:38 PM
Sorry to intrude (more than you know!), especially as you guys are arguing about what y'all said in a previous argument, but it almost sounds to me like one side (see above) has taken the position that SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system? Is this an accurate assessment of this position?
Thanks for overcoming your sorrow brought on by intruding, we're always happy to get your scholarly input.

To answer your questions: no and no. I'm saying (and I assume you are talking about my comments), that it won't matter if either the earth or the universe are open or close systems, evo still won't work.


By the way, I'm assuming that "evo" is shorthand for something specifically relevant to biological evolution, not, say, "evolution of the universe," right? Otherwise, never mind!
Yes. Ultimately biological evolution-at-the-phylum-level.

aharvey
February 2nd, 2006, 02:33 PM
Thanks for overcoming your sorrow brought on by intruding, we're always happy to get your scholarly input.

To answer your questions: no and no. I'm saying (and I assume you are talking about my comments), that it won't matter if either the earth or the universe are open or close systems, evo still won't work.
I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially. So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."


Yes. Ultimately biological evolution-at-the-phylum-level.
Ah, somehow I knew we'd get back to the old "evolution-at-the-phylum level" fallacy... Yorzhik, evolution most emphatically does not happen at the phylum level! Who says it does? Are you thinking that the degree of evolutionary change can be correlated with time but only over short time intervals, because there is a relatively low upper limit to the maximum possible amount of evolutionary change within a lineage? This would allow species to evolve, even to evolve into other species, but would limit how different they could ultimately get. I'm willing to work with you to get a clear idea of what you're after, but you've got to understand the different between "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" and "evolution at higher taxonomic levels."

bob b
February 2nd, 2006, 05:37 PM
Is there any such thing as a perfectly closed system, with the possible exception of a carefully controlled lab experiment?

If not does this mean that the SLoT is never to be invoked?

Guess it must be a useless concept. ;)

noguru
February 3rd, 2006, 12:34 AM
Is there any such thing as a perfectly closed system, with the possible exception of a carefully controlled lab experiment?

If not does this mean that the SLoT is never to be invoked?

Guess it must be a useless concept. ;)

Bob you are excluding the middle. Are you saying that there are only two possibilities?
SLoT is either the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces?
Or SLoT has not influence whatsoever?

I think you are missing the big area in the middle.

One Eyed Jack
February 3rd, 2006, 02:31 AM
Is there any such thing as a perfectly closed system, with the possible exception of a carefully controlled lab experiment?

You can't even get one then. In order to be observed, it has to be open to some degree. The universe as a whole would be a closed system, but I haven't seen many evolutionist debaters willing to admit that.


If not does this mean that the SLoT is never to be invoked?

Guess it must be a useless concept. ;)

That's my problem with this particular argument. It's essentially denying a fundamental law of physics.

noguru
February 3rd, 2006, 04:20 AM
You can't even get one then. In order to be observed, it has to be open to some degree. The universe as a whole would be a closed system, but I haven't seen many evolutionist debaters willing to admit that.



That's my problem with this particular argument. It's essentially denying a fundamental law of physics.

I'm not sure what you are using to determine that the universe is a closed system. Just because you say something is so (that the universe is a closed system) does not make it so. If the logic were inescapable, I would have to admit it.

At any rate, if God is outside the universe and can influence (create, modify, and guide) the universe of which he is not a part, it would appear that the universe is an open system.

Yorzhik
February 3rd, 2006, 05:06 PM
I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially. So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."


[QUOTE=aharvey]I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially
Here is what I said "no" to with an explanation just to keep things clear:


SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system?

And I was saying "no" because it is a problem even if the universe is closed.

aharvey continues:

So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?
#2


And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
Yes and no. Your definition is correct, but a functional definition that is better to use: "... the second law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out."


Ah, somehow I knew we'd get back to the old "evolution-at-the-phylum level" fallacy...
Dude... it isn't true or false, it is an arbitrary point in a system accepted by evolutionists so we can both be more clear about what we mean.

aharvey continues:

Yorzhik, evolution most emphatically does not happen at the phylum level! Who says it does? Are you thinking that the degree of evolutionary change can be correlated with time but only over short time intervals, because there is a relatively low upper limit to the maximum possible amount of evolutionary change within a lineage? This would allow species to evolve, even to evolve into other species, but would limit how different they could ultimately get. I'm willing to work with you to get a clear idea of what you're after, but you've got to understand the different between "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" and "evolution at higher taxonomic levels."
I'll try to explain evolution at the phylum level by example. Phylum refers to body type. Let's say we have a fish body type and a mammal body type as examples. The two body types in our example both existed at the same time. Something came before them according to evolution and branched into both lines that was:
1. a fish body type, which evolved into a mammal body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a fish body type in the other evolutionary line.

2. a mammal body type, which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

3. a mixture of a fish and a mammal body type which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

4. a body type that was neither fish type nor mammal type which evolved into, creating, a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

So this example is covered by which definition? "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" or "evolution at higher taxonomic levels"? or something else?

One Eyed Jack
February 3rd, 2006, 11:27 PM
I'm not sure what you are using to determine that the universe is a closed system.

The universe is defined by all the matter and energy there is. What else do I need?


Just because you say something is so (that the universe is a closed system) does not make it so. If the logic were inescapable, I would have to admit it.

That doesn't mean you will. I've seen many people take a pass on inescapable logic.


At any rate, if God is outside the universe and can influence (create, modify, and guide) the universe of which he is not a part, it would appear that the universe is an open system.

It's only open to God. To everybody else, it's closed.

noguru
February 4th, 2006, 07:53 AM
The universe is defined by all the matter and energy there is. What else do I need?



That doesn't mean you will. I've seen many people take a pass on inescapable logic.



It's only open to God. To everybody else, it's closed.

How's that? Its either closed or it is open. If it is open to God then it is open, and we should be open to seeing his input whatever form that may be.

bob b
February 4th, 2006, 09:39 AM
[QUOTE=aharvey]I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially. So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."



Here is what I said "no" to with an explanation just to keep things clear:



And I was saying "no" because it is a problem even if the universe is closed.

aharvey continues:

#2


Yes and no. Your definition is correct, but a functional definition that is better to use: "... the second law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out."


Dude... it isn't true or false, it is an arbitrary point in a system accepted by evolutionists so we can both be more clear about what we mean.

aharvey continues:

I'll try to explain evolution at the phylum level by example. Phylum refers to body type. Let's say we have a fish body type and a mammal body type as examples. The two body types in our example both existed at the same time. Something came before them according to evolution and branched into both lines that was:
1. a fish body type, which evolved into a mammal body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a fish body type in the other evolutionary line.

2. a mammal body type, which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

3. a mixture of a fish and a mammal body type which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

4. a body type that was neither fish type nor mammal type which evolved into, creating, a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

So this example is covered by which definition? "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" or "evolution at higher taxonomic levels"? or something else?

Your argument is without merit because you are ignorant of the fact that both fish and mammals belong to the same phylum (body type).


(I couldn'r resist the humor which I hear sometimes on the radio when a talk host "illustrates absurdity by being absurd) ;)

One Eyed Jack
February 4th, 2006, 11:31 AM
How's that?

It's pretty simple, actually. Because He is God, and we're not. I realize this can be very difficult to accept, but that's just the way it is.


Its either closed or it is open.

As far as science is concerned, it's closed. We're dealing with matter and energy here. God is Spirit.


If it is open to God then it is open, and we should be open to seeing his input whatever form that may be.

What exactly would you look for? It seems to me that God pretty much just lets the universe run itself. I suppose you could look at the amazing order in the universe and all that, but you guys typically reject that sort of thing.

noguru
February 5th, 2006, 08:22 AM
t's pretty simple, actually. Because He is God, and we're not. I realize this can be very difficult to accept, but that's just the way it is.

What is difficult to accept? That He is God and we are not. I do not have difficulty accepting that. Do you?



As far as science is concerned, it's closed. We're dealing with matter and energy here. God is Spirit.

Oh really. That's news to me. I thought from the view of natural philosohy or science this is still an unanswered question. But thank you Jack for giving us your opinion on this matter.



What exactly would you look for? It seems to me that God pretty much just lets the universe run itself. I suppose you could look at the amazing order in the universe and all that, but you guys typically reject that sort of thing.

I am looking for truth Jack. What are you looking for?

I do agree however, that God pretty much lets the universe run itself. And no I don't reject all that "amazing order of the universe as evidence for God" sort of stuff. I just realize that the question of whether ornot God exists cannot be answered from the limited view of natural philosohy or science. You seem to be trying to use the material sciences to answer that question for you. I know it in my heart.

aharvey
February 5th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Here is what I said "no" to with an explanation just to keep things clear:

Quote:
SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system?

And I was saying "no" because it is a problem even if the universe is closed.
Um, those sound like exactly the same claim to me!

aharvey continues:

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
Yes and no. Your definition is correct, but a functional definition that is better to use: "... the second law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out."
Your definition has a couple of interesting components to it:

1. “differences”… in anything? Have we been able to expand the lawlike behavior of SloT to cover everything?
2. you dropped “thermodynamically isolated” from “systems;” is there a reason for that? I get the “thermodynamically” part, since the law now apparently covers everything, but do systems no longer need to be “isolated”?
3. you do keep the “tend to” part in the definition. That little qualifier seems extremely relevant.

With respect to evolution, what are you considering the relevant “systems” to be? Mutations occur within individuals or their gametes; are these the systems? Evolutionary change is something we observe at the population level; is this the system? Or is the earth itself the relevant system?

Dude... it isn't true or false, it is an arbitrary point in a system accepted by evolutionists so we can both be more clear about what we mean.
That goal was never quite achieved, though. By focusing on the end points (i.e., how we assign modern taxa to phyla), you lose sight of the point that the significance of two lineages diverging is that they subsequently have separate evolutionary histories, not that they end up looking profoundly different. Let’s take your fish-mammal example. It doesn’t matter whether their most recent common ancestor looked like a fish, a mammal, something in between, or something else altogether. But whatever that common ancestor looked like, it was one single lineage representing just a single species, maybe even a single population within a species, of critter. And a short time after that lineage irrevocably split into two lineages (that eventually led to two very different body plans), the two lineages would hardly have been distinguishable; initially, they wouldn’t even be considered different species, much less phyla. But once the two lineage stop sharing genes, they are free to respond to ecological pressures differently, their subsequent mutational histories are independent of each other, and the more time passes, the more different they are likely to become. The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.

bob b
February 5th, 2006, 11:36 AM
The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.

Stating something to be true does not necessarily make it true.

You have put your finger on the crux of the dispute between evolutionists and creationists.

The creation hypothesis, the belief that Genesis is essentially a correct account of Origins and early history of Man, requires a certain degree of change and diversification to have occurred since the Flood, because all of the variety we see today could not have been saved on the Ark.

And such change is also verified by what can be observed today in County Fair exhibits as well as scientific observations of changes occurred over short time frames.

But why do lifeforms change so rapidly?

Certainly it cannot be due to random mutations presenting new forms for natural selection to process. The genomes of even simple creatures like bacteria are simply too large for mutations to be the primary mechanism.

Sexual reproduction (and other known "natural" mechanisms in non-sexual life) however do cause rapid change, and those changes give reliable results, ones that give workable offspring almost every time, unlike the mutants that come about by random changes in the genome.

If one assumed that first life was not a hypothetical primitive protocell, but instead was a bevy of creatures of many kinds, then the later change and diversification of life over thousands of years would make perfect sense.

But the Genesis scenario could not possibly be, you say, because either there is no God or else God would never have done such a thing, even though it says in His Word that he did.

Besides, Science does not deal with the supernatural, so go away God and sell your stupid story to ignorant peasants who do not know how Science really works.

:dizzy:

noguru
February 5th, 2006, 12:01 PM
Stating something to be true does not necessarily make it true.

You have put your finger on the crux of the dispute between evolutionists and creationists.

The creation hypothesis, the belief that Genesis is essentially a correct account of Origins and early history of Man, requires a certain degree of change and diversification to have occurred since the Flood, because all of the variety we see today could not have been saved on the Ark.

And such change is also verified by what can be observed today in County Fair exhibits as well as scientific observations of changes occurred over short time frames.

But why do lifeforms change so rapidly?

Certainly it cannot be due to random mutations presenting new forms for natural selection to process. The genomes of even simple creatures like bacteria are simply too large for mutations to be the primary mechanism.

Sexual reproduction (and other known "natural" mechanisms in non-sexual life) however do[/] cause rapid change, and those changes give [B]reliable results, ones that give [B]workable offspring almost every time, unlike the mutants that come about by random changes in the genome.

If one assumed that first life was not a hypothetical primitive protocell, but instead was a bevy of creatures of many kinds, then the later change and diversification of life over thousands of years would make perfect sense.

But the Genesis scenario could not possibly be, you say, because either there is no God or else God would never have done such a thing, even though it says in His Word that he did.

Besides, Science does not deal with the supernatural, so go away God and sell your stupid story to ignorant peasants who do not know how Science really works.

:dizzy:

Bob apply the first sentence you posted to the claims in the rest of your thread.

bob b
February 5th, 2006, 12:41 PM
Bob apply the first sentence you posted to the claims in the rest of your thread.

True, but why not address the hypothesis I presented instead of posting a "hit and run"?

Afraid to risk the ire of the atheistic evolutionists?

aharvey
February 5th, 2006, 02:47 PM
Stating something to be true does not necessarily make it true.
Excuse me? You aren't, perchance, taking my statement out of context here, are you? I was explaining to Yorzhik why his fixation on "evolution at the phylum level" was a false dichotomy: according to evolutionary theory, the processes that lead to different phyla are the same as those that lead to different species. In that context, it was unnecessary to add the part that I just emphasized in boldface. So unless you are claiming that this statement is contradicted by evolutionary theory, I would suggest that you have nicely demonstrated the problem with taking quotes out of context.

You have put your finger on the crux of the dispute between evolutionists and creationists.

The creation hypothesis, the belief that Genesis is essentially a correct account of Origins and early history of Man, requires a certain degree of change and diversification to have occurred since the Flood, because all of the variety we see today could not have been saved on the Ark.

And such change is also verified by what can be observed today in County Fair exhibits as well as scientific observations of changes occurred over short time frames.
Do the short term changes to which you refer routinely lead to new species? We can change the way a dog looks over a short amount of time, but do we end up with a new species? If not, then what's the justification for saying that this kind and rate of change is sufficient to generate, for example, sixty species of kangaroos in 4,000 years? Is it really the same thing?

But why do lifeforms change so rapidly? Certainly it cannot be due to random mutations presenting new forms for natural selection to process. The genomes of even simple creatures like bacteria are simply too large for mutations to be the primary mechanism.
That's a bit of a non sequitur, bob, and a bit nonsensical, but I can guess what you're trying to say. (What we normally think of as) mutations would have a hard time increasing the length of an ancestral genome to even the size of that of a simple organism like a bacteria, right? I'll take it a step further for you and observe that the only kind of mutation you want to discuss, i.e., point mutations, is in fact incapable of increasing the size of a genome, since point mutations merely replace one base with another at an existing locus. So it's even worse than you portray. Or is it? Have biologists really overlooked such an obvious, er, point?

Sexual reproduction (and other known "natural" mechanisms in non-sexual life) however do cause rapid change, and those changes give reliable results, ones that give workable offspring almost every time, unlike the mutants that come about by random changes in the genome.
Interesting idea. How often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)? By "reliable," don't you mean "already present and tested"? And if it's not already present, how could such a genetically based trait show up in the absence of mutation?

If one assumed that first life was not a hypothetical primitive protocell, but instead was a bevy of creatures of many kinds, then the later change and diversification of life over thousands of years would make perfect sense.

But the Genesis scenario could not possibly be, you say, because either there is no God or else God would never have done such a thing, even though it says in His Word that he did.
As you are fully aware, when scientists suggest a history of life that differs from that in the Genesis scenario, they do so because available evidence from a diverse array of sources contradicts the specifics of the story, and they agree with each other in suggesting a rather different scenario. Despite your grudging admission that the Wald quote is a complete fabrication, you clearly have no qualms about attributing it to the minds of the scientists who disagree with you.

Besides, Science does not deal with the supernatural, so go away God and sell your stupid story to ignorant peasants who do not know how Science really works.
:dizzy:
Oops, must be time for your meds, bob. Hope it helps with the dizziness.

bob b
February 5th, 2006, 04:07 PM
Excuse me? You aren't, perchance, taking my statement out of context here, are you?

Excuse me, you have previously stated your belief that small changes add up to big changes and I was merely reminding everyone that this has not been established scientifically. Are you going to tell us that this is not your belief?


I was explaining to Yorzhik why his fixation on "evolution at the phylum level" was a false dichotomy: according to evolutionary theory, the processes that lead to different phyla are the same as those that lead to different species. In that context, it was unnecessary to add the part that I just emphasized in boldface. So unless you are claiming that this statement is contradicted by evolutionary theory, I would suggest that you have nicely demonstrated the problem with taking quotes out of context.

But since you have previously stated that you believe this to be true I consider that your protest is no more than a useless quibble, as frequently occurs in courtroom sparring.


Do the short term changes to which you refer routinely lead to new species? We can change the way a dog looks over a short amount of time, but do we end up with a new species? If not, then what's the justification for saying that this kind and rate of change is sufficient to generate, for example, sixty species of kangaroos in 4,000 years? Is it really the same thing?

You confuse me. I hadn't noted that you had changed sides. Perhaps you would do well to define what you mean by a species. If we can't define something how can we discuss it?


That's a bit of a non sequitur, bob, and a bit nonsensical, but I can guess what you're trying to say. (What we normally think of as) mutations would have a hard time increasing the length of an ancestral genome to even the size of that of a simple organism like a bacteria, right? I'll take it a step further for you and observe that the only kind of mutation you want to discuss, i.e., point mutations, is in fact incapable of increasing the size of a genome, since point mutations merely replace one base with another at an existing locus. So it's even worse than you portray. Or is it? Have biologists really overlooked such an obvious, er, point?

No. They simply set aside certain things when inconvenient to their overall concepts. We have some experience with mutations in the lab. But in other cases it is merely assumed that certain differences between lifeforms are due to past mutations. And in the case of fossils we have zero experience with mutational causes and history.


Interesting idea. How often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)? By "reliable," don't you mean "already present and tested"? And if it's not already present, how could such a genetically based trait show up in the absence of mutation?

That of course is the question. The only mutational data we have is on present day lifeforms. Why they differ is an open question, but certainly we know that great differences can be generated by sexual reproduction in a short period of time. Of course some mutations, mostly detrimental, do occur. The question is whether this is a minor factor or a major one when studying different lines of descent. This is hard to determine because we can not look at the DNA of fossilized creatures.


As you are fully aware, when scientists suggest a history of life that differs from that in the Genesis scenario, they do so because available evidence from a diverse array of sources contradicts the specifics of the story, and they agree with each other in suggesting a rather different scenario.

It is not necessary to believe in the Genesis story in order to pursue an alternative to the hypothetical primitive protocell assumption. One could assume "multiple original lifeforms" without being tainted with the label "religious fanatic". Especially since it makes far more sense in the light of the increasing detailed knowledge of the complexities of interrelated biological systems and subsystems.


Despite your grudging admission that the Wald quote is a complete fabrication, you clearly have no qualms about attributing it to the minds of the scientists who disagree with you.

I only admitted that one sentence appeared to be out of character. The rest of his admissions regarding abiogenesis were quite consistent with other quotations of statements he made over the years and can be found and verified that he said them.


Oops, must be time for your meds, bob. Hope it helps with the dizziness.

I do admit to a sense of vertigo when I read certain evolutionary stories which contradict themselves with dizzying rapidity.

aharvey
February 5th, 2006, 04:32 PM
Excuse me, you have previously stated your belief that small changes add up to big changes and I was merely reminding everyone that this has not been established scientifically. Are you going to tell us that this is not your belief?
I'm going to tell you, again, that you were taking quotes out of context; I am talking with Yorzhik about something other than you are wanting to prattle on about.

But since you have previously stated that you believe this to be true I fconsider that your protest is any more than a useless quibble, as frequently occurs in courtroom sparring.
How do you figure? To continue with your courtroom analogy, you're in the wrong courtroom, bud.

You confuse me. I hadn't noted that you had changed sides. Perhaps you would do well to define what you mean by a species. If we can't define something how can we discuss it?
Nice try. I've already noted, at length, that biologists understand species concepts just fine, and the fact that you can quote-mine internal discussions among professionals who want an even better standard to imply that there is no agreement at all has long since lost its novelty. You will have a great deal of trouble finding anyone who disagrees with the number of extent kangaroo species, no matter what their "species concept." And incidentally, you've long established that you're quite happy to make claims about terms that you are loathe to define, so don't pretend otherwise.

No. They simply set aside certain things when inconvenient to their overall concepts. We have some experience with mutations in the lab. But in other cases it is merely assumed that certain differences between lifeforms are due to past mutations. And in the case of fossils we have zero experience with mutational causes and history.
Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence.

That of course is the question.
Well, that was one of them. I asked you more, but you skipped over them, and then in the post below, repeat the statement that caused me to ask them in the first place.

The only mutational data we have is on present day lifeforms. Why they differ is an open question, but certainly we know that great differences can be generated by sexual reproduction in a short period of time.
Again, how often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)?

Of course some mutations, mostly detrimental, do occur. The question is whether this is a minor factor or a major one when studying different lines of descent. This is hard to determine because we can not look at the DNA of fossilized creatures.
Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence. Good thing we also have some more quantitative estimates of the rate at which mutations occur, and we know that there are more mutations being generated than your wimpy "some, mostly detrimental" would imply.

It is not necessary to believe in the Genesis story in order to pursue an alternative to the hypothetical primitive protocell assumption. One could assume "multiple original lifeforms" without being tainted with the label "religious fanatic". Especially since it makes far more sense in the light of the increasing detailed knowledge of the complexities of interrelated biological systems and subsystems.
Sigh, I was responding to your making assertions about scientists and the Genesis story, or have you forgotten that already? Or is this another piece of evidence for you that evolutionists bring up the Bible when they feel threatened?

I only admitted that one sentence appeared to be out of character. The rest of his admissions regarding abiogenesis were quite consistent with other quotations of statements he made over the years and can be found and verified that he said them. echoed by
Ah, so you don't think they were fabrications? Good to know. And you are claiming they are consistent with other quotes he made over the years. And you are claiming that you are not taking these other quotes out of context, that they really do show that he thinks spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, but that he has to believe it because he feels compelled to reject God? You really wanna go there? Because I have just about had it with your twisting and inserting words and ideas into other people's mouths and minds, and your willingness to say just about anything to forward your holy cause.

I do admit to a sense of vertigo when I read certain evolutionary stories which contradict themselves with dizzying rapidity.
You must have cause and effect confused, bob. It's hard to make sense of complex ideas whilst in the midst of a vertigo attack.

bob b
February 5th, 2006, 05:14 PM
I'm going to tell you, again, that you were taking quotes out of context; I am talking with Yorzhik about something other than you are wanting to prattle on about.

I thought I was doing you a favor by switching you to a field where you at least have some knowledge about (even if some critical interpretations are wrong).


How do you figure? To continue with your courtroom analogy, you're in the wrong courtroom, bud.

The court of public opinion is now in session.


Nice try. I've already noted, at length, that biologists understand species concepts just fine, and the fact that you can quote-mine internal discussions among professionals who want an even better standard to imply that there is no agreement at all has long since lost its novelty. You will have a great deal of trouble finding anyone who disagrees with the number of extent kangaroo species, no matter what their "species concept."

Great! Then why the reluctance to let the peasantry in on your definitions?


And incidentally, you've long established that you're quite happy to make claims about terms that you are loathe to define, so don't pretend otherwise.

Monkey do as monkey see. ;)


Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence.[.quote]

Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?

[quote]Well, that was one of them. I asked you more, but you skipped over them, and then in the post below, repeat the statement that caused me to ask them in the first place.


If anyone understands that clue me in.


Again, how often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)?

All the time. They are called genetic defects or genetic diseases.


Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence.

Seems to be an echo in here. I will return the favor with an echo of my own. "Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?"


Good thing we also have some more quantitative estimates of the rate at which mutations occur,

You mean like Mitochrondrial Eve? Why do you reject the "revised rate" that yielded 6000 years?


and we know that there are more mutations being generated than your wimpy "some, mostly detrimental" would imply.

Amazing how you were able to quantify "some". Sounds like another "just-so" story coming up.


Sigh, I was responding to your making assertions about scientists and the Genesis story, or have you forgotten that already? Or is this another piece of evidence for you that evolutionists bring up the Bible when they feel threatened?

Possibly.


Ah, so you don't think they were fabrications? Good to know.

You get a lot of mileage out of my "seems out of character".


And you are claiming they are consistent with other quotes he made over the years. And you are claiming that you are not taking these other quotes out of context, that they really do show that he thinks spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, but that he has to believe it because he feels compelled to reject God?

You were doing fine until you threw in the last phrase.


You really wanna go there? Because I have just about had it with your twisting and inserting words and ideas into other people's mouths and minds, and your willingness to say just about anything to forward your holy cause.

I thought you were in favor of the holy cause of Truth. Twisting and inserting words is a matter of opinion and we all struggle with what another meant by what they said or failed to say. I would say that your interpretation of my "seems out of character" is a case in point.


You must have cause and effect confused, bob. It's hard to make sense of complex ideas whilst in the midst of a vertigo attack.

No problem, I took my meds. ;)

One Eyed Jack
February 6th, 2006, 06:59 AM
What is difficult to accept? That He is God and we are not. I do not have difficulty accepting that.

Some people do.


Do you?

No. I fully realize I'm a created being. I'm just happy to be here.


Oh really. That's news to me.

Glad to be of service.


I thought from the view of natural philosohy or science this is still an unanswered question.

If the universe is all the matter and energy that exists (and according to dictionary.com, it is), then there's nothing else with which it can interact -- that's a closed system anyway you slice it.


I am looking for truth Jack.

Why do you reject it then?


What are you looking for?

Here? I'm just killing time before I go to bed.


I do agree however, that God pretty much lets the universe run itself. And no I don't reject all that "amazing order of the universe as evidence for God" sort of stuff.

But you reject intelligent design, is that correct?


I just realize that the question of whether ornot God exists cannot be answered from the limited view of natural philosohy or science.

I didn't ask you whether or not God exists -- I simply asked what sort of thing you would consider as evidence of His handiwork.


You seem to be trying to use the material sciences to answer that question for you.

No -- I'm not even asking that question. I already know God exists.


I know it in my heart.

Good.

aharvey
February 6th, 2006, 11:49 AM
I thought I was doing you a favor by switching you to a field where you at least have some knowledge about (even if some critical interpretations are wrong).

The court of public opinion is now in session.
Spare us the attempts at humorly rationalizing why you feel compelled to change the subject.

Great! Then why the reluctance to let the peasantry in on your definitions?
An apparently failing attempt to keep you on issue. If you really want to have a discussion with me about species concepts, so be it.

Monkey do as monkey see. ;)
In other words, you’re admitting that you’re a hypocrite. Well, that’s a step in the right direction, at least.

Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?
Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination. As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

If anyone understands that clue me in.
Let’s see: I asked a few questions, you ignored all but the last, claiming of that last one “that’s the question.” Then later you repeated the statement that caused me to ask the questions that you ignored. Got it now?

All the time. They are called genetic defects or genetic diseases.
Lovely. You constantly argue that mutations cannot be involved in significant evolutionary change mainly because they almost always lead to genetic defects or genetic diseases (all that "downhill evolution" crap; now there's an example of resolutely refusing to define a term that's not in common usage!), and explicitly trot out sexual reproduction as your favored alternative. But what evidence do you present that sexual reproduction can lead to significant changes? Genetic defects and genetic diseases!

Seems to be an echo in here. I will return the favor with an echo of my own. "Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?"
Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination. As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

You mean like Mitochrondrial Eve? Why do you reject the "revised rate" that yielded 6000 years?
Why do you never tire of grossly misrepresenting what I say? I’ve never expressed the slightest opinion about any estimate of the age of “Mitochondrial Eve.” Do you understand, bob? Never, never, never, ever, ever, ever. Is that plain enough for you? What I did reject is your foolish effort to make the Mitochondrial Eve concept into something it most assuredly is not. This is so classic, bob. You make lame statement, I correct, you do not respond to my correction, then, later, you make original lame statement, with additional misrepresentation to boot.

So, one more time: “Mitochondrial Eve” does not represent the original human female. “Mitochondrial Eve” represents the most recent female ancestor common to all humans alive today. If a catastrophe reduced human populations to a low enough level, the title could pass on to a new Mitochondrial Eve, and the clock would be reset to zero.

Same time next month?

Amazing how you were able to quantify "some". Sounds like another "just-so" story coming up.
No clue what you're saying here. Were you perhaps unaware that folks do calculate mutation rates?

Possibly.
Curious time to equivocate, but it would not surprise me. Bob: Genesis. Alan: What about Genesis? Bob: See how evolutionists attack the Bible when they feel threatened?

You get a lot of mileage out of my "seems out of character".

Quote:
"And you are claiming they are consistent with other quotes he made over the years. And you are claiming that you are not taking these other quotes out of context, that they really do show that he thinks spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, but that he has to believe it because he feels compelled to reject God?"

You were doing fine until you threw in the last phrase.
I’m sorry, then let me directly quote the fabricated quote you are equivocating about: “I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.” So do you still think your mined quotes are consistent with this fabrication?

I thought you were in favor of the holy cause of Truth. Twisting and inserting words is a matter of opinion and we all struggle with what another meant by what they said or failed to say. I would say that your interpretation of my "seems out of character" is a case in point.
Well, we’ll see once you reread the “quote” about which you are equivocating.

bob b
February 6th, 2006, 02:21 PM
Spare us the attempts at humorly rationalizing why you feel compelled to change the subject.

An apparently failing attempt to keep you on issue. If you really want to have a discussion with me about species concepts, so be it.

Your funeral (got lots of quotes here too).


In other words, you’re admitting that you’re a hypocrite. Well, that’s a step in the right direction, at least.

Another interpolation?


Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination. As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

We do tend to deal with real world evidences rather than wild imaginings like evolutionists, sorry to say.


Let’s see: I asked a few questions, you ignored all but the last, claiming of that last one “that’s the question.” Then later you repeated the statement that caused me to ask the questions that you ignored. Got it now?

Sounds as confusing as your last ramble, although it does sound vaguely like the "any question you don't answer (because it is inane) is a victory for me" tactic. Try avoiding filling the thread with off topic questions. Focus, man!!!


Lovely. You constantly argue that mutations cannot be involved in significant evolutionary change mainly because they almost always lead to genetic defects or genetic diseases (all that "downhill evolution" crap;

See. You can understand me if you try. ;)



now there's an example of resolutely refusing to define a term that's not in common usage!),

You're better than me at inventing obscure terms. Care to try here?


and explicitly trot out sexual reproduction as your favored alternative. But what evidence do you present that sexual reproduction can lead to significant changes?
Genetic defects and genetic diseases!

The County Fair exhibits works for me.


Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination.

You're a blast!! :wave:


As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

False charge. I love to read science fiction.


Why do you never tire of grossly misrepresenting what I say?

Because it's fun?


I’ve never expressed the slightest opinion about any estimate of the age of “Mitochondrial Eve.” Do you understand, bob? Never, never, never, ever, ever, ever.

Pity. What happened to that imagination?


Is that plain enough for you?


Nope, I'm wondering why not.


What I did reject is your foolish effort to make the Mitochondrial Eve concept into something it most assuredly is not. This is so classic, bob. You make lame statement, I correct, you do not respond to my correction, then, later, you make original lame statement, with additional misrepresentation to boot.

Lame is in the eye of the beholder.


So, one more time: “Mitochondrial Eve” does not represent the original human female.

You guys invented the title, not me.


“Mitochondrial Eve” represents the most recent female ancestor common to all humans alive today. If a catastrophe reduced human populations to a low enough level, the title could pass on to a new Mitochondrial Eve, and the clock would be reset to zero.

"Noah's family" doesn't have the same "ring" to it, does it?


Same time next month?

How about continually? I really enjoy this.


No clue what you're saying here. Were you perhaps unaware that folks do calculate mutation rates?

I was aware, but people also draft astrology charts (and may even believe in them).


Curious time to equivocate, but it would not surprise me. Bob: Genesis. Alan: What about Genesis? Bob: See how evolutionists attack the Bible when they feel threatened?

You take the bait don't you? :wave:


I’m sorry, then let me directly quote the fabricated quote you are equivocating about: “I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.” So do you still think your mined quotes are consistent with this fabrication?

Well, we’ll see once you reread the “quote” about which you are equivocating.

If you would like to revisit the Wald quotations on this thread in addition to the other one you started, then I will be happy to oblige. But first let me post all the quotations so that the casual reader can decipher the nature of the dispute.

[quote]“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
Lynn posting#48 on Fossil Record thread

“Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.) From Lynn reference http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

-----
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

George Wald (1906 - 1997) Professor of Biology at Harvard University Nobel Laureate Web Amazon GP
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46
8 George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Life: Origin and Evolution (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman Publishing, 1979), p. 48. (Ankerberg site)

--------

From all this I concluded that Wald said many times that "spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible" yet he also notes that "we" (scientists) believe it anyway.

I expressed my skepticism about Wald mentioning God because in that era (mine) attacking God or even expressing doubts about Him was rare. Perhaps he said it, perhaps he didn't. But nevertheless it does seem that he chided scientists (perhaps himself as well) for believing in it anyway because of the only other alternative.

----

Same time tomorrow?

(I can't wait) ;)

noguru
February 6th, 2006, 04:30 PM
True, but why not address the hypothesis I presented instead of posting a "hit and run"?

I was in a hurry. I Did not have time to respond to all of your muddied thinking in that post.

And yes, I would certainly like to address the hypothesis you presented. Could you please present it again in a concise manner, by leaving out all the negativity aimed at the naturalisric explanation.



Afraid to risk the ire of the atheistic evolutionists?

In my life I have noticed very little ire by atheistic evolutionists towards my beliefs. What I have noticed is much ire, aimed at people who are Christian but yet accept the naturalistic explanation, coming from your camp.

noguru
February 6th, 2006, 04:46 PM
No. I fully realize I'm a created being. I'm just happy to be here.


I feel exactly the same way.



If the universe is all the matter and energy that exists (and according to dictionary.com, it is), then there's nothing else with which it can interact -- that's a closed system anyway you slice it.


But Jack we don't know enough about how the universe works yet to make this assumption. Neither do we know if the universe is only the matter/energy and space of which we are currently aware. It's strange that most professionals who study this field would not make such a claim, but you are certain that your claim is completely and exhaustively exact.



Why do you reject it then?


I don't. But like you, when I come here I'm just killing time before I go to bed.



But you reject intelligent design, is that correct?


Nope. I just do not believe that such a hypothesis can be verified through the material sciences. That is if the intelligence is assumed to be "supernatural".



I didn't ask you whether or not God exists -- I simply asked what sort of thing you would consider as evidence of His handiwork.


I accept all sorts of things as his handiwork. He did after all create the matter/energy and natural processes in the universe.



No -- I'm not even asking that question. I already know God exists.


I didn't say you were asking that question. I said that you seem to need to find evidence from the material sciences to support your knowledge that God exists.

aharvey
February 6th, 2006, 04:58 PM
[static]
Phew, you finally decided to abandon any pretense of "discussion." Now perhaps Yorzhik and I can resume our discussion.

If you would like to revisit the Wald quotations on this thread in addition to the other one you started, then I will be happy to oblige. But first let me post all the quotations so that the casual reader can decipher the nature of the dispute.
Nah, better to keep it there, so I've moved that part over. But thanks for adding to the list of poorly referenced and out-of-context Wald quotes.

Yorzhik
February 10th, 2006, 01:23 PM
Um, those sound like exactly the same claim to me!
Oops, I meant "open".


Your definition has a couple of interesting components to it:

1. “differences”… in anything? Have we been able to expand the lawlike behavior of SloT to cover everything?
No, I would only be referring to differences related to energy transfer. Could you tell me why this would be interesting? why "energy transfer" wouldn't be obviously what I was referring to in the context of this discussion?


2. you dropped “thermodynamically isolated” from “systems;” is there a reason for that? I get the “thermodynamically” part, since the law now apparently covers everything, but do systems no longer need to be “isolated”?
Because you look at every energy transfer in its context whether it be in a "thermodynamically isolated" system or not. It's the way we always actually work with the law because that's the conditions we work under.


3. you do keep the “tend to” part in the definition. That little qualifier seems extremely relevant.
It could be irrelevant if we are talking about a practical application only. But we are mixing in a theoretical application too, so I leave it in.


With respect to evolution, what are you considering the relevant “systems” to be? Mutations occur within individuals or their gametes; are these the systems? Evolutionary change is something we observe at the population level; is this the system? Or is the earth itself the relevant system?
Any system where energy transfer will occur spontaneously. However, that is most easily discussed at the DNA level.


That goal was never quite achieved, though. By focusing on the end points (i.e., how we assign modern taxa to phyla), you lose sight of the point that the significance of two lineages diverging is that they subsequently have separate evolutionary histories, not that they end up looking profoundly different. Let’s take your fish-mammal example. It doesn’t matter whether their most recent common ancestor looked like a fish, a mammal, something in between, or something else altogether. But whatever that common ancestor looked like, it was one single lineage representing just a single species, maybe even a single population within a species, of critter. And a short time after that lineage irrevocably split into two lineages (that eventually led to two very different body plans), the two lineages would hardly have been distinguishable; initially, they wouldn’t even be considered different species, much less phyla. But once the two lineage stop sharing genes, they are free to respond to ecological pressures differently, their subsequent mutational histories are independent of each other, and the more time passes, the more different they are likely to become. The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.
See the first bolded text; Yes, that is the point I was driving at. It doesn't matter what it was, a fish, a mammal, or something else. Whatever mutations were required to eventually get to the point in question (and I am talking about that arbitrary phylum point) from the point at which the lineages split - that is the definition of "evo". Either we can use that definition, or a fish and a mammal are the same thing.

Johnny
February 10th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Yorzhik, can you respond to the discussion in our 3rd generation thread? I realize you may be busy, but I saw that you engaged another SLoT debate here.

Yorzhik
February 10th, 2006, 10:12 PM
I put a post up there a day or so ago. Was there another post I was supposed to respond to?

bob b
February 10th, 2006, 10:14 PM
Originally Posted by aharvey

That goal was never quite achieved, though. By focusing on the end points (i.e., how we assign modern taxa to phyla), you lose sight of the point that the significance of two lineages diverging is that they subsequently have separate evolutionary histories, not that they end up looking profoundly different. Let’s take your fish-mammal example. It doesn’t matter whether their most recent common ancestor looked like a fish, a mammal, something in between, or something else altogether. But whatever that common ancestor looked like, it was one single lineage representing just a single species, maybe even a single population within a species, of critter. And a short time after that lineage irrevocably split into two lineages (that eventually led to two very different body plans), the two lineages would hardly have been distinguishable; initially, they wouldn’t even be considered different species, much less phyla. But once the two lineage stop sharing genes, they are free to respond to ecological pressures differently, their subsequent mutational histories are independent of each other, and the more time passes, the more different they are likely to become. The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.

This appears to me to be what I encounter in the car showroom, namely when the saleman tells me all sorts of things that I probably agree with, but then when he has got me nodding my head at everything he says he tosses in a "hooker" (like the highlighted last sentence above).

ThePhy
February 10th, 2006, 10:47 PM
From bob b:
Fossils can not be "dated" unless they contain unmineralized organic material. Whenever unmineralized organic material (like wood) is found in a sedimentary layer thought to be millions of years old and dated by C-14 it invariably dates to around 33,000 years ago. 1) How many actual examples of “unmineralized organic material (like wood)” can you supply that were found in “a sedimentary layer thought to be millions of years old”?

2) What is the approximate limit of time that C-14 dating can reach back?
This is well within the accuracy of the Genesis account considering the probable changes in cosmic radiation and other environmental factors not normally considered when the testing lab produces a "date". The Genesis timeline that most YECs adhere to puts the age of the earth at 6000 to 7000 years. Some biological artifacts can be dated by reference by non-radiometric means (such as historical records, tree rings, etc.) a long ways towards 6000 years ago. Some of these same artifacts can be C-14 dated as well, and in fact that is how the C-14 dating is calibrated to adjust for the inherent uncertainties (ozone layer, etc).

Using the C-14 dating that is calibrated for accuracy back as far as reliable accepted non-radiometric methods reach, why would these same methods suddenly “invariably date to around 33,000 years ago”? This is a step discontinuity of 500%. Are there other biological specimens that use the calibrated C-14 and get dates intermediate between the 7000 year Genesis limit and the 33,000 years alluded to? If so, what combination of original C-14 and decay rates and so on would explain such intermediate dates?
Fossils are found entombed in sedimentary layers. "Sedimentary" means water-laid so that these layers are basically dried mud. This is why the layers cannot be dated either. Many such layers are sandwiched between magma layers that are not sedimentary, and these encompassing layers are very dateable.
No creationist I know denies some small role of Natural Selection in aiding the small changes that lead to adaptation (bacterial/insecticide resistance). The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't. “Based on scientific grounds” means you can substantiate that there is a limit to how far evolution can alter a species. Your proof is?
The fossil record is further proof that they don't. And in this declaration you have completely discounted the primary evidence that more than a century of scientists have found does point to common descent. The fossil record is exactly one showing a history of increasing diversification of life
As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this. There are several important results of SLoT in closed systems – results that can be trivially violated when the system is open. I am surprised you did not know this.

noguru
February 11th, 2006, 12:01 AM
This appears to me to be what I encounter in the car showroom, namely when the saleman tells me all sorts of things that I probably agree with, but then when he has got me nodding my head at everything he says he tosses in a "hooker" (like the highlighted last sentence above).

Why would you trust a car salesman anyway? Do the research on your desired make, model, year. And go find yourself one.

bob b
February 11th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Why would you trust a car salesman anyway? Do the research on your desired make, model, year. And go find yourself one.

Isn't that what I am in effect doing on this forum? ;)

noguru
February 11th, 2006, 01:36 PM
Isn't that what I am in effect doing on this forum? ;)

Nope. It seems to me that you have been going from salesman to salesman in your life. And then complaining that you have been steered wrong.

ThePhy
February 14th, 2006, 10:19 AM
From bob b:
As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this. Bob, I am surprised to see you say this. Most people, including many in the science community do not know this. Many are vaguely aware of the normal "closed system "SLoT". But you are right, even though a closed system is the norm for most discussions of the SLoT, in fact there are generalizations of it that, as you infer, apply to open systems.

The SLoT has two common interpretations – one is that disorder increases, and one is that energy becomes unavailable to do work

You offered your comment in a discussion of the SLoT and evolution. As it is commonly invoked against evolution, specifically what can SLoT in an open system say, or what aspect of evolution (or even abiogenesis) does an “open system SLoT” discredit? Is it more powerful in it's limitations than the normal "closed system SLoT"?

bob b
February 14th, 2006, 12:16 PM
Bob, I am surprised to see you say this. Most people, including many in the science community do not know this. Many are vaguely aware of the normal "closed system "SLoT". But you are right, even though a closed system is the norm for most discussions of the SLoT, in fact there are generalizations of it that, as you infer, apply to open systems.

The SLoT has two common interpretations – one is that disorder increases, and one is that energy becomes unavailable to do work

You offered your comment in a discussion of the SLoT and evolution. As it is commonly invoked against evolution, specifically what can SLoT in an open system say, or what aspect of evolution (or even abiogenesis) does an “open system SLoT” discredit? Is it more powerful in it's limitations than the normal "closed system SLoT"?

To tell you the truth, I was not offering the SLoT as a means to falsify evolution (there are already plenty of other reasons to disbelieve it). I just happened to notice that the "open" thing was being thrown around and since I had already posted a reference to an article by a professor who had explained why the SLoT can also apply to open systems as well, I merely reminded people of this.

Actually my posting on METHINKS IT IS (LIKE) A WEASEL nicely disposes of "random mutations plus natural selection plus millions of years" in a simple and easy to see manner.

ThePhy
February 14th, 2006, 03:40 PM
From bob b:
To tell you the truth, I was not offering the SLoT as a means to falsify evolution (there are already plenty of other reasons to disbelieve it). I just happened to notice that the "open" thing was being thrown around and since I had already posted a reference to an article by a professor who had explained why the SLoT can also apply to open systems as well, I merely reminded people of this. Most ideas in math and science have variants that could be talked about, just as in the open systems version of the SLoT. But if introducing that variant does not help to establish a relevant point, it serves as obfuscation, not clarification. So you are admitting that you don’t know whether the open systems version of the SLoT clarifies whether or not evolution could occur? (Or, to be forthright, are you just trying to sound scientifically impressive?)

Generalizing the SLoT to an open system intimately depends on the application a powerful theorem in Calculus that deals with flows into or out of a volume. I presume you took calculus. Do you know the theorem I am referring to?

fool
February 14th, 2006, 03:47 PM
Actually my posting on METHINKS IT IS (LIKE) A WEASEL nicely disposes of "random mutations plus natural selection plus millions of years" in a simple and easy to see manner.
I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post there and tell us what scrabble has to do with anything.
Just a guess, to get the ball rolling, if your talking about evolution, where on your scale of "p" in that thread does your theory that all dogs, wolves, cyotes, foxs, dingos, jackels, hyenas, ect. came from Noahs pooch fit?

bob b
February 14th, 2006, 04:02 PM
I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post there and tell us what scrabble has to do with anything.
Just a guess, to get the ball rolling, if your talking about evolution, where on your scale of "p" in that thread does your theory that all dogs, wolves, cyotes, foxs, dingos, jackels, hyenas, ect. came from Noahs pooch fit?

Still in your "rut"?

I guess you, like Jukia, don't get the point either.

:darwinsm:

fool
February 14th, 2006, 04:07 PM
Still in your "rut"?

I guess you, like Jukia, don't get the point either.

:darwinsm:
I guess you don't have a point if you can't clarify your OP there and answer my question here. Why do you bother Bob?

bob b
February 14th, 2006, 04:19 PM
I guess you don't have a point if you can't clarify your OP there and answer my question here. Why do you bother Bob?

Sometimes I ask myself that.

But I am fond of you guys, some more than others, but I am truly amazed that your dogmatism has so blinded you that even grade schoolers could probably see what I was driving at (at least in some small way).

You're a pretty intelligent guy. Try taking a wild guess. :think:

Lord Vader
February 14th, 2006, 05:35 PM
This appears to me to be what I encounter in the car showroom, namely when the saleman tells me all sorts of things that I probably agree with, but then when he has got me nodding my head at everything he says he tosses in a "hooker" (like the highlighted last sentence above).

Hello. I'm not a biologist, so I wanted to ask what was wrong with the highlighted part? Many thanks.

Jackson
February 14th, 2006, 06:24 PM
The problem with evolution scientists is that they are searching for an answer and they say that positively under no circumstances can the answers ever be any thing the Bible says! It is like trying to figure out what 2+2 is and saying the answer can never be 4...

Lord Vader
February 14th, 2006, 06:28 PM
The problem with evolution scientists is that they are searching for an answer and they say that positively under no circumstances can the answers ever be any thing the Bible says! It is like trying to figure out what 2+2 is and saying the answer can never be 4...

I'm not replying directly to you, Jackson. I just wanted to ask if Bob B agrees with this and finds no problem with the logic.

Jackson
February 14th, 2006, 06:36 PM
I'm not replying directly to you, Jackson. I just wanted to ask if Bob B agrees with this and finds no problem with the logic.
My reply was in general not to you either. No harm no foul!

Lord Vader
February 14th, 2006, 07:36 PM
My reply was in general not to you either. No harm no foul!

Oh no, I didn't mean to argue that I didn't like you replying to me... I mean that I specifically wanted to ask Bob B about your post. So much of communication is non verbal...

fool
February 14th, 2006, 09:37 PM
The problem with evolution scientists is that they are searching for an answer and they say that positively under no circumstances can the answers ever be any thing the Bible says! It is like trying to figure out what 2+2 is and saying the answer can never be 4...
Strawman.
Anyone can make an accurate statement at any time.
Even if there reasoning is flawed their statement may be true.
Try again.

bob b
February 15th, 2006, 06:36 AM
Hello. I'm not a biologist, so I wanted to ask what was wrong with the highlighted part? Many thanks.

I presume that you are referring to:


The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla.

In the posting where this quotation appeared, aharvey gave us some examples, or at least some reason to believe that small changes can create new species. This is hard to refute in a situation where the people who are declaring and naming new species are the same ones who are telling us what the mechanism is which is responsible for creating a new species.

A hypothetical simple example may suffice:

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that a canine is born of an Alaskan Malamute father and a Chow mother. The result is like no other dog presently known. The scientists tell us that it is so different it is a new species. They also surmise that its DNA is considerably different (of course everyone's DNA is different from everyone elses so it is a subjective judgment as to how much difference constitutes a new species).

Finally the suggestion is made that the physical appearance plus the DNA difference is sufficient to justify the declaration that this is a new species. Of course the acid test of a new species is whether it can mate with a different species and produce fertile offspring which then can go on and produce more fertile offspring. Or is it?

Wrong. There are exceptions. These exceptions are ignored or else explained away as "not occurring in the wild".

There are always nasty exceptions in biology, but "most of the time" is the ready answer to them.

This is a rather long and drawn out discussion which should lead thoughtful people to realize that even in the "simple" case of small changes and "species" that people do not know everything about even the simplest and best understood area of biology: i.e. small changes.

But then they claim that the same poorly understood process which underlies small changes will eventually result, given unlimited time, to the huge changes which differentiate one phylum (body plan) from another. The process is obviously the same, as any fool can plainly see.

The used car salesman has stated the "hooker" as fact, and many people believe.

aharvey
February 15th, 2006, 08:28 AM
I presume that you are referring to:

mined quote from aharvey: The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla.

In the posting where this quotation appeared, aharvey gave us some examples, or at least some reason to believe that small changes can create new species. This is hard to refute in a situation where the people who are declaring and naming new species are the same ones who are telling us what the mechanism is which is responsible for creating a new species.

A hypothetical simple example may suffice:

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that a canine is born of an Alaskan Malamute father and a Chow mother. The result is like no other dog presently known. The scientists tell us that it is so different it is a new species. They also surmise that its DNA is considerably different (of course everyone's DNA is different from everyone elses so it is a subjective judgment as to how much difference constitutes a new species).

Finally the suggestion is made that the physical appearance plus the DNA difference is sufficient to justify the declaration that this is a new species. Of course the acid test of a new species is whether it can mate with a different species and produce fertile offspring which then can go on and produce more fertile offspring. Or is it?

Wrong. There are exceptions. These exceptions are ignored or else explained away as "not occurring in the wild".

There are always nasty exceptions in biology, but "most of the time" is the ready answer to them.

This is a rather long and drawn out discussion which should lead thoughtful people to realize that even in the "simple" case of small changes and "species" that people do not know everything about even the simplest and best understood area of biology: i.e. small changes.

But then they claim that the same poorly understood process which underlies small changes will eventually result, given unlimited time, to the huge changes which differentiate one phylum (body plan) from another. The process is obviously the same, as any fool can plainly see.

The used car salesman has stated the "hooker" as fact, and many people believe.
Since I have repeatedly observed that, unlike species, higher taxonomic categories like "phyla" are post hoc, largely arbitrary categorizations, it seems disingenuous at best for you to intrepret one sentence of mine to imply otherwise. It may be true that today, organisms in different phyla have been separated for so long that they have accumulated a large number of major differences from each other, but that doesn't mean that those huge changes all appeared at the same time. I don't expect you to understand this, as it's quite similar to the idea that just because sedimentary layers can be found worldwide today doesn't mean they were all laid down at the same time. It's worth noting that the more likely the members of a major taxonomic group are to leave a good fossil record, the less likely we are to see "sudden appearances" of that group, and the more clearly we see the episodic accumulation of those "huge differences." For example, as easy as it is to distinguish a mammal from a reptile today, the distinction becomes more or less arbitrary when you include fossils.

Incidentally, there have been very few attempts to use DNA to delineate species, for exactly the reason you provide: there are no objective criteria as to how different DNA of different species needs to be (see, biologists are already kinda clued into the distinction between intraspecific and interspecific genetic variation). And there probably will never be: speciation is not the same as evolution, and two populations can undergo a great deal of genetic differentiation and still be able to breed quite successfully, and alternatively two populations may have only accumulated changes at a couple of loci that nonetheless essentially prevent subsequent gene flow.