User Tag List

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 276

Thread: Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

  1. #61
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,839
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 8,419 Times in 6,493 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147802
    If a YEC declared that the fountains of the great deep brought forth the water that flooded the Earth, but when asked to explain how that happened simply restated their idea, the Darwinists would cry foul and rightly so.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    way 2 go (February 14th, 2018)

  3. #62
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,039
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 570 Times in 408 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183368
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    It's called circular reasoning.
    It's called observation. We see populations evolve via evolutionary mechanisms. That's why we call them "evolutionary mechanisms"; they're the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

    The challenge to this from entropy requires you to explain the mechanism that converts energy from the sun into genetic information.
    I told you...mutation.

    The problem is that Darwinsm relies on randomness, which can never produce anything but noise.
    Yet we see evolutionary mechanisms causing populations to evolve all the time. Huh....

    And yet, evolution requires upward progression of complexity.
    Which as the paper I linked to earlier shows, is a directly observed and documented fact.

  4. #63
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,839
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 8,419 Times in 6,493 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147802
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    We see populations evolve via evolutionary mechanisms.
    No, we don't.

    When changes are observed in a population, they are demonstrably not the result of random mutations and natural selection.

    mutation.
    In every other scenario, random changes are always bad for information.

    And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.

    Yet we see evolutionary mechanisms causing populations to evolve all the time.
    Nope. We see degradation, or, at best, adaptation in response to environmental changes.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    way 2 go (February 14th, 2018)

  6. #64
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,039
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 570 Times in 408 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183368
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    No, we don't.
    Uh huh.

    When changes are observed in a population, they are demonstrably not the result of random mutations and natural selection.
    What are they result of then?

    In every other scenario, random changes are always bad for information.
    Not in evolution.

    And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.
    Lol....tell that to a plant.

    Nope. We see degradation, or, at best, adaptation in response to environmental changes.
    By what mechanisms do populations adapt?

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jose Fly For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (February 13th, 2018),Greg Jennings (February 13th, 2018)

  8. #65
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,046
    Thanks
    2,306
    Thanked 4,217 Times in 2,502 Posts

    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1958155
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    Why not?
    Well, doesn't dna already hold the trait? I was under the impression maligned dna doesn't help modification. Again, in your court, as I've a general overall of the field, but am not versed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    Understood.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  9. #66
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,839
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 8,419 Times in 6,493 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147802
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    Uh huh.
    Yep.

    Not in evolution.
    That's the issue. Entropy is a physical necessity. Evolution is just a theory. If all you have is your idea, entropy wins.

    If you want to declare a local reduction in entropy, you have to describe the mechanism by which energy is used to build better genomes.

    And you don't get to assume the truth of evolution to establish evolution. That is called begging the question a logical fallacy.

    The problem is the random mutations part. Nothing is random.

    Tell that to a plant.
    Even better, let's test our competing ideas.

    Define your terms, then shine sunlight on some plants and see what we get: Dead plants, or plants with improved genomes.

    By what mechanisms do populations adapt?
    Don't know exactly. Organisms are designed, and that design likely contains contingencies so they can survive in varied conditions.

    There's also a means to test the adaptation hypothesis against the evolutionary model: A group of organisms exposed to conditions that see it change will not be as robust as the original population.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    way 2 go (February 14th, 2018)

  11. #67
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,595
    Thanks
    376
    Thanked 392 Times in 305 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    241740
    Can any YECs here explain the well-documented phenomenon of island dwarfism?

    We see it in humans, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, among others.

    And we see island gigantism from lesser creatures in the absence of competition: see the coconut crab

    Some shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)
    But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?

  12. #68
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,002
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 142 Times in 124 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    60518
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe
    And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.
    Lol....tell that to a plant.
    I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.

  13. #69
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    31,815
    Thanks
    16,759
    Thanked 15,983 Times in 12,554 Posts

    Blog Entries
    28
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    If a YEC declared that the fountains of the great deep brought forth the water that flooded the Earth, but when asked to explain how that happened simply restated their idea, the Darwinists would cry foul and rightly so.
    I think it's explained quite clearly.

    And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
    2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
    3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
    4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
    5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
    6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
    7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
    8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
    9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
    10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
    11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
    12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
    13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
    14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
    15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
    16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.
    17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
    18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
    19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
    20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
    21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
    22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
    23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
    24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

  14. #70
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,599
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 3,403 Times in 2,064 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1367983
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings
    ....Some shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)
    Superficially?? Greg....selection results in a loss of genetic variation. It is science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings

    But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?
    Greg, you got caught making up stories about sharks growing an extra fin, so you should be careful that you aren't making up another story. Please post research showing mutations caused the coconut crab / robber crab to get bigger and more carnivorous.... then we can discuss it.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 14th, 2018),patrick jane (February 14th, 2018)

  16. #71
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,839
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 8,419 Times in 6,493 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147802
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings View Post
    Can any YECs here explain the well-documented phenomenon of island dwarfism?We see it in humans, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, among others. And we see island gigantism from lesser creatures in the absence of competition: see the coconut crabSome shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?
    You want us to explain it when you just did?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wick Stick View Post
    I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.
    Why wait? Here we go now.

    Who are you?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.


  17. #72
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,412
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 1,623 Times in 1,135 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    281573
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    =
    The thread titled 'Why Evolution is real science...' suggests either a) the 'author' does not know what real science is... or b) is equivocating on terminogy. (Real science is not your beliefs about the past, nor mine)
    If you were right, we'd have to toss out geology, astronomy, archeology, forensics...(long list). But you're wrong. The notion that evidence can't tell us what happened in the past, is so patently foolish that no one actually believes it. Not even you.

    God's Word tells us He formed man from the dust, and woman from mans rib. (That is not science).
    Right. Parables are not science. They are ways of teaching us by telling stories.

    You seem to believe 'fish' evolved into philosophers.
    (No matter how much scientists tell creationists that humans evolved from primates, they never quite get it)

    Funny (sort of) that you abject to clarifying terminology before we start the discussion.
    I'm merely pointing out that your declaration removing geology and forensics from science is pretty dumb.

    Also funny (sort of) that you and the thread author only want to discuss "Why Evolution is real science" but don't want to discuss why 'evolution is NOT Real science.
    We just found out why you think stuff like forensics isn't "real science." So it was useful to clarify what you believe, or at least claim to believe.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  18. #73
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,039
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 570 Times in 408 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183368
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Well, doesn't dna already hold the trait?
    Even if that were the case with plasmodium, that still begs the question....where did the genetic sequences for its traits come from? Do you believe God deliberately put them there?

    I was under the impression maligned dna doesn't help modification.
    Let's stay on topic here. Remember, we're talking about where the genetic sequences that allow pathogens, parasites, and pests to be so terrible came from. Creationists like to argue that evolutionary mechanisms can't do it and that only "intelligence" (i.e., God) can. So on the surface that seems to indicate that God specifically and deliberately created things like plasmodium with the ability to cause immense suffering and death.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  19. #74
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,039
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 570 Times in 408 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183368
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    That's the issue. Entropy is a physical necessity. Evolution is just a theory. If all you have is your idea, entropy wins.
    Good thing we have direct observation and documentation of populations evolving.

    If you want to declare a local reduction in entropy, you have to describe the mechanism by which energy is used to build better genomes.
    Already done, but apparently you don't hold yourself to your own criteria.

    And you don't get to assume the truth of evolution to establish evolution. That is called begging the question — a logical fallacy.
    No need to assume. We see it happen directly.

    Define your terms, then shine sunlight on some plants and see what we get: Dead plants, or plants with improved genomes.
    Here ya go: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...0.00978.x/full

    Plants, living in sunlight, evolving into new species that have larger genomes and are more robust than their parental species.

    Don't know exactly. Organisms are designed, and that design likely contains contingencies so they can survive in varied conditions.
    So you say populations adapt, but you have no idea how. Further, you say "organisms are designed" but you've done nothing but assume that to be true, which as you note above is begging the question.

    You can't even meet your own criteria.

    There's also a means to test the adaptation hypothesis against the evolutionary model: A group of organisms exposed to conditions that see it change will not be as robust as the original population.
    Done. See above.
    Last edited by Jose Fly; February 14th, 2018 at 01:16 PM.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  20. #75
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,039
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 570 Times in 408 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183368
    Quote Originally Posted by Wick Stick View Post
    I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.
    I know which one I'd put my money on.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us