Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

I see. Only evolution can be questioned when it suits you, right?

You know what would be really cool? Instead of jumping through hoops, trying (and failing miserably), to discredit evolution, why don't you actually present positive evidence for creationism?

Come on Dave. Stay with the science theme. Forget the mindless preaching and religious platitudes for a bit and present some sound scientific, falsifiable evidence for creationism. And don't forget to provide links to back up your peer reviewed conclusions .

It's much easier to knock down than build up Dave, so here's your chance. In your own time.....

Dave is arguing from science. Look at your argument... you avoid his arguments and attack him. I assume you and others attack him, because you don't have a good logical argument yourself.

 

[6days]

If God is doing all of the selecting in evolution then is that artificial or natural selection? :liberals:

Who are you asking this too? Because it seems you are creating a bit of a strawman. Dave didn't say "God is doing all the selecting"

 

[DFT_Dave]

You may have explained, but only through fallacious equivocation.

The cell itself has a purpose. It is to continue life. The copying error or genetic variation is not directed by that same purpose. If the made copy (exact or not) serves its function it will reproduce, if it does not serve its purpose it will die and not reproduce. This is the empirical evidence we have, despite your inability to grasp that.

According to your logic all cells/organisms would live forever, or all would reproduce before dying. This is clearly not the case. Hence your argument is fallacious.

I bet you are going to want to talk about your ideas of God now, and your interpretation of Genesis.

Maybe your understanding of God can get you out of the corner you painted yourself into.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Cells replicate, living things reproduce.

The purpose of a cell goes beyond continued life.

The cell contains DNA, exact information that forms, in humans for example, hands, feet, legs, etc., blood, bone, etc., all in the right places, etc.

People with sickle-cell disease still get malaria, though not as severe, so how is this inherited disease an advantage for all of those who have never lived where malaria is prevalent and never get the disease? This tells me nothing about how, or even that, man evolved from a primitive ape.

This disease, like all others, are a brake down of what is already there in DNA, not a building up and adding to DNA that evolution from ape to man requires and the evolution of everything else.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Who are you asking this too? Because it seems you are creating a bit of a strawman. Dave didn't say "God is doing all the selecting"

Just throwing it out there, this isn't Dave v the "evolutionists" is it?
What is your answer btw natural or artificial selection if God does it?

 

[DFT_Dave]

So now you want to add the additional qualifier of "intentional" to this contextual use of teleological?

If a tree unintentionally falls across a river, can it still serve the purpose of a bridge for humans who come by later?

If a human fells the tree with the intention of creating a bridge, does that increase it's purpose over one that fell without "intention"?

And you accuse me of equivocating.

:rotfl:

Intention is purpose.

The humans crossing a river over a tree that has fallen have the intention of using it as a bridge. Nature has not intentioned it to be a bridge so it has no purpose, in itself, to be a bridge, therefore it is simply a fallen tree, not a bridge. Next you'll be telling me a tree is a ladder.

World English Dictionary

bridge 1

— n
1. a structure that spans and provides a passage over a road, railway, river, or some other obstacle
2. something that resembles this in shape or function: his letters provided a bridge across the centuries
3. a. the hard ridge at the upper part of the nose, formed by the underlying nasal bones
b. Compare pons any anatomical ridge or connecting structure
4. the part of a pair of glasses that rests on the nose
5. Also called: bridgework a dental plate containing one or more artificial teeth that is secured to the surrounding natural teeth
6. a platform athwartships and above the rail, from which a ship is piloted and navigated
7. a piece of wood, usually fixed, supporting the strings of a violin, guitar, etc, and transmitting their vibrations to the sounding board
8. Also called: bridge passage a passage in a musical, literary, or dramatic work linking two or more important sections
9. electronics Also called: bridge circuit any of several networks, such as a Wheatstone bridge, consisting of two branches across which a measuring device is connected. The resistance, capacitance, etc, of one component can be determined from the known values of the others when the voltage in each branch is balanced
10. computing a device that connects networks and sends packets between them
11. billiards, snooker
a. a support for a cue made by placing the fingers on the table and raising the thumb
b. a cue rest with a notched end for shots beyond normal reach
12. theatre
a. a platform of adjustable height above or beside the stage for the use of stagehands, light operators, etc
b. chiefly ( Brit ) a part of the stage floor that can be raised or lowered
13. a partition in a furnace or boiler to keep the fuel in place
14. build bridges to promote reconciliation or cooperation between hostile groups or people
15. burn one's bridges See burn
16. cross a bridge when one comes to it to deal with a problem only when it arises; not to anticipate difficulties

— vb
17. to build or provide a bridge over something; span: to bridge a river
18. to connect or reduce the distance between: let us bridge our differences

As you can see there are 18 different ways the word bridge can be used. So, in an argument one must define how he is using the word bridge in order that his point is made clear. The point is not defeated by the one who wants to refute it by using a different definition of the word--that's equivocation.

--Dave

 

[6days]

Just throwing it out there, this isn't Dave v the "evolutionists" is it?
What is your answer btw natural or artificial selection if God does it?

haha... I enjoy your comments alwight... not that I agree but It often gives me a smile.
Do I have to pick one of your two possible answers?
Or am I allowed to give my own answer?
God created everything...supernatural creation.
God created laws that govern nature and our universe.
God created the DNA code within organisms that allows variation and adaptation.

 

[alwight]

People with sickle-cell disease still get malaria, though not as severe, so how is this inherited disease an advantage for all of those who have never lived where malaria is prevalent and never get the disease?

But those who don't have tropical ancestry typically don't have sickle cells Dave.

 

[DFT_Dave]

But those who don't have tropical ancestry typically don't have sickle cells Dave.

:dizzy:

And just what does that have to do with my question as to how is sickle cell is an advantage to all those who never get malaria?

Oh, let me guess, it's a liability not an advantage.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

:dizzy:

And just what does that have to do with my question as to how is sickle cell is an advantage to all those who never get malaria?

Oh, let me guess, it's a liability not an advantage.

--Dave

It is, again, populations which evolve, not individuals. So the benefit of having the sickle cell gene is to the population, not to every specific individual. It benefits people on the average in a malaria endemic area, but not those in mid northern or southern latitudes.

Get with it, Dave. You ought to be able to follow this simple argument.

 

[Lordkalvan]

:dizzy:

And just what does that have to do with my question as to how is sickle cell is an advantage to all those who never get malaria?

Oh, let me guess, it's a liability not an advantage.

--Dave

You may find this article informative:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

From that article:

'Individuals carrying just one copy of the sickle mutation (inherited from either the father or mother) were known not to develop sickle cell anemia, leading rather normal lives. However, it was found that these same individuals, said to carry the sickle cell trait, were in fact highly protected against malaria, thus explaining the high prevalence of this mutation in geographical areas where malaria is endemic.'

 

[DFT_Dave]

I see. Only evolution can be questioned when it suits you, right?

You know what would be really cool? Instead of jumping through hoops, trying (and failing miserably), to discredit evolution, why don't you actually present positive evidence for creationism?

Come on Dave. Stay with the science theme. Forget the mindless preaching and religious platitudes for a bit and present some sound scientific, falsifiable evidence for creationism. And don't forget to provide links to back up your peer reviewed conclusions .

It's much easier to knock down than build up Dave, so here's your chance. In your own time.....

An just who qualifies as a "peer" reviewer?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You may find this article informative:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

From that article:

'Individuals carrying just one copy of the sickle mutation (inherited from either the father or mother) were known not to develop sickle cell anemia, leading rather normal lives. However, it was found that these same individuals, said to carry the sickle cell trait, were in fact highly protected against malaria, thus explaining the high prevalence of this mutation in geographical areas where malaria is endemic.'

They still get malaria, though not as severe, and they still have a much shorter life span.

Sickle cell is of no advantage to those who never get malaria, it's a disadvantage.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

haha... I enjoy your comments alwight... not that I agree but It often gives me a smile.
Do I have to pick one of your two possible answers?
Or am I allowed to give my own answer?
God created everything...supernatural creation.

:e4e:
Almost anything can be blithely "explained" away by supposing the miraculous, saying God "smurfs" things is probably about as good for an answer.

God created laws that govern nature and our universe.

No it was Papa Smurf imo.

God created the DNA code within organisms that allows variation and adaptation.

If that is so then your God also created the malaria to which He apparently put a remedy for into human DNA.
Then again only some humans seem to have that particular sickle cell DNA as far as I know, perhaps you think Adam had it?

 

[DFT_Dave]

If God is doing all of the selecting in evolution then is that artificial or natural selection? :liberals:

That would be "supernatural selection". :cheers:

--Dave

 

[Lordkalvan]

They still get malaria though not as severe...

Actually, those with the sickle-cell mutation are much more resistant to malaria because the parasites are attacked by the sickle-shaped blood cells.

...and they still have a much shorter life span.

That would be those with sickle-cell anaemia, that is those with two copies of the mutation.

Sickle cell is of no advantage to those who never get malaria, it's a disadvantage.

The sickle-cell mutation protects them against malaria so, unsurprisingly, carriers are less susceptible to malaria. Thus it is advantageous in affected populations.

 

[alwight]

:dizzy:

And just what does that have to do with my question as to how is sickle cell is an advantage to all those who never get malaria?

Oh, let me guess, it's a liability not an advantage.

--Dave

I don't know if the sickle cell DNA is built into the whole human gene-pool, I don't think so btw, but in those with ancestry from outside tropical regions it simply isn't an issue Dave because it is not an expressed gene and those people aren't even carriers of it.

 

[gcthomas]

An just who qualifies as a "peer" reviewer?

--Dave

Why don't you review it yourself if you don't trust the expert reviewers? I'll await your critique...

 

[alwight]

That would be "supernatural selection". :cheers:

--Dave

When exactly should we give up on any scientific naturalistic only answers Dave?

If I find something a bit too hard to figure out personally should I then just assume that since I can't understand it then nobody else can, and therefore God must have done it?
Or maybe I might not be quite as clever as I think I am and should keep on trying, especially if science does seem to know what it's talking about? :think:

 

[Hedshaker]

An just who qualifies as a "peer" reviewer?

--Dave

So you won't be presenting positive, falsifiable evidence for creationism then? Thought not!

 

[DFT_Dave]

You can equivocate until you are blue in the face, but your high-school pseudo-logic is getting you nowhere.

You are aware of the meaning of the word selection in the context of Darwinian evolution, aren't you? You know that it is only used as an analogy to the selection by plant and animal breeders and that there is no purpose to it?

Dave, you are so over confident in your own inerrancy that you are in danger of idolising yourself as you just ignore all arguments against you.

Another attack of ad hominems

:angrymob: Get Dave, that high-schooled pseudo-logical self idolizer.

As I've made clear, natural selection is a meaningless phrase.

Let's get more technical then, let's look at the logic of it all, if you can handle it.

Rational thinking
Kant destroyed the proof for God as perfect being. Fortunately "perfect being" is from natural theology not Biblical revelation. To say a "perfect being" cannot not exist does not really prove he exists. The structure of the argument is the classic tautology--circular reasoning in which the conclusion is implied in the premise. The demise of "reasoning" the nature and existence of God prepares the way for a new way of thinking.

Dialectic thinking
Hegel was critical of thinking antithetically--thesis verses antithesis, where two contradictory ideas cannot both be true. He even went beyond "synthesis", the combining an idea with it's antithesis to form a new idea, and said that the new idea will also have it's own antitheses from which we can form another synthesis which will form it's own antithesis and so on, and on, and on.....the dialectic methodology. The Theory of evolution follows this idea, but first ToE is a synthesis.

The modern synthesis: Evolution and genetics

Thesis: Random events in nature Antithesis: non random events in nature

Synthesis: Non random events in nature--environment, work with random events in nature--mutations

The dialectic of evolution:
Ameba become fish become amphibians become reptiles become birds become mammals become man become theists become republicans become atheists become democrats :cheers:

But back to original thesis and antithesis of the modern synthesis.

Thesis: Genetics--the dispersion of gene pools Antithesis: Evolution--the accumulation of gene pools

Synthesis: Both the accumulations and the dispersions of gene pools is evolution

If the theory of evolution was only a philosophy we would not know if it were true or not, but because it's also an empirical science it has to show us physical evidence to confirm it. The fossil record has failed to do this so DNA has become the test of truth.

When we, who are skeptical of ToE, ask for proof of the "accumulation" of DNA we are presented with proof of the "dispersion" instead. When we protest the evolutionists say evolution is both the "accumulation of DNA" and the "dispersion of DNA", if we can prove one we have proven the other, contradictions are not a problem, we resolve the conflict by unification. Evolution has become the UN of sciences. Accumulation and dispersion are the same thing just as fallen trees and bridges.

The sickle cell is a good example of evolution for the evolutionist. It is an example how existing DNA in a cell mutates and disperses, we all agree with that. When asked how the cell that mutated originated we are told it's a mutation as well, but when we ask for "evidence" of past mutations that gave rise to present DNA we are told that present ones are evidence for all past ones, which makes evolution unverifiable because we cannot recover past DNA and therefore unfalsifiable. This is also a tautology--circular reasoning, just like the proof for the existence of God.

This also becomes equivocation because evolution has two definitions, the accumulation of DNA and the dispersion of DNA. The present existence and dispersion of mutations are given as proof of the past accumulation of mutations that ironically became healthy cells, rationality not required.

A agree with Francis Schaeffer, all syntheses are irrational and not true understandings of who God is, the world we live in, or how we got here.

Dynamic Free Theism is the only rational, antithetical world view.

--Dave