Rejected what? College?
Real Science Friday: Dawkins Proves a Creationist Right!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Rejected what? College?
YahuShuan
New member
Oh you'll know. I told you what to do, and trusting me had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. You were offered the opportunity just like the whole world has been. Saying it sucked ain't too swift. And I have given no threats. You won't understand a thing until you submit yourself to DO what was offered you and "taste and see that Yah is good".
You're not going to do that though are you. He said, "My people perish for lack of knowledge", and so when He gives it, you refuse it. Can't blame anyone but yourself and your own words for that I reckon. Keep on, it is people such as yourself who refuse Him that prove out every Word that has been written. Living proof you are for what you don't believe.
Everyday, we measure the erosion of rock, the volumetric flow of rivers, we measure and actively observe the expansion of the universe. And we can do it over and over again.
What are they "watching" to observe and measure evolution?
Agreed, a science with an agenda is not science at all.
If remember correctly, the church was responsible for funding many of the arts and sciences of the Renaissance. Perhaps Da Vinci is a good example?
Tyrathca
New member
Changes in the allele frequency and traits within populations and the emergence of new species. All of which have been observed (we can even do some of it in the lab). We can also make predictions and check them against fossil records, this can be repeated by finding new fossils.
But in a similar way to geology and astronomy most of the major features described by the science can not be observed in real time (such as the formation of mountain ranges, formation of stars, large scale changes in morphology such as land mammal to dolphin) because they occur to slow.
So? The same can be said of many religions. Given that they had most of the money of course they would have to then be the ones to fund it (a pity they mostly funded self-agrandising art)
Tyrathca
New member
But I don't know, that's the problem. If I knew I wouldn't have needed you to tell me either.
Trusting you has everything to do with it. You tell me to do one thing, someone else tells me to do another, another someone else tell me to do a different thing, and my own knowledge and intuition tell me to do none of them. Which one do I do? If I do yours it means I am rejecting the others (in effect saying I don't trust their opinion). Since I don't trust you over them or myself why would I do that?
I said the advice on what and how to say it sucked. If you have a valid message or argument you aren't conveying it well.
Your whole rant is a fairly typical "believe or else you'll get it" message. You make God sound like a mob boss running a protection racket.
Why do you assume it's my fault and not your bad preaching? Arrogant much?
So if I believed I'd be proof for the existence of god and if I don't believe I'm proof for the existence of god... forgive me if I don't consider your statement all that meaningful.
YahuShuan
New member
That's ok, you will.
Tyrathca
New member
So you're saying that we have watched, and even caused entire species to emerge from an entirely different one? Please reassure me that we're not talking about micro evo.
Other areas of science do have phenomena that occurs slowly, but not near the scale that evolution requires. Heck, the development of an embryo can't been seen in real time. The birth, and death of a star have both been observed before, but I suppose it was determined so by observing several stars in one of many stages. Each stage though, can be assumed to be there since its only an explosion, or compression- much more predictable than the spontaneous nature of genetic alteration.
The six years of Darwinist atheist tripe. :dunce:
Tyrathca
New member
You're being disingenuous by adding weasel words such as "entirely different". I said new species had been observed to come about, your added qualification is unnecessary. Some of those examples occurred with human intervention, some even in the lab (i.e. Drosophila paulistorum). The emergence of entirely new alleles/traits has also been observed (i.e. bacteria which can digest nylon and citrate metabolism by e coli)
Changes in allele frequency and traits within populations is observed regularly in the lab and in nature, which I don't think you dispute.
Please provide a description of macroevolution which is not simply microevolution repeated over a longer timescale.
Does speciation count as micro or macro to you? Do new beneficial mutations/traits count as micro or macro? Can you description clearly demarcate the difference between the two or will it be a fuzzy line?
Planet, star and galaxy formation are thought to take far longer than evolution requires. The formation of mountain ranges by continental drift is along a similar time scale. And I recall I already mentioned such examples, so your question is stupid.
So? That would seem to support my position concerning the inaccurate description given of what constitutes science (and further claims that evolution is thus not science) rather than hurt it.
And this is different to looking at the fossil record how?
That sounds a lot like you are saying "evolution is too complicated for me therefore can't be true"
Plus you ignore the example of planet formation, which is far from easily predictable due to the chaos of orbital velocities, different densities of materials and the variable environment around stars. Similarly you ignore galaxy formation (which come to think of it is not well understood due to holes in our understanding of gravity/dark matter)
Sorry, I'm not good at arguing, I didn't mean to use any weasel words.
How I understand macro-evolution from micro, is that macroevolution occurs as the evolution between genus to genus. Going from one number of chromosomes to a new number- going from cat to dog. I understand micro as going from wolf, to poodle. Speciation would count as micro to me. I might also say that new beneficial traits can occur in micro, as this is what I understand to be observed.
Am I way off here? Please let me know, I'm a physicist not a biologist.
The difference I see in observing a star collapse, verses something on the scale of macroevolution, is that physicists would not say that there are any observed "missing links" to the process. No self respecting biologist would ever say that all the links are found, they would say that they have yet to be discovered!
Though, holes in your scientific understanding, are nothing more than research opportunities.
Tyrathca
New member
Which would essentially be the same as the changes seen to create new species repeated several times (i.e. something that generally would happen over a timescale longer than we have been around looking)
Well the number of chromosomes changing we have seen multiple times in plants. I don't think we have observed it occurring in animals to create new species. Such a criteria is obviously useless in bacteria.
You also realise that dogs didn't evolve from cats right? And that the difference between cats and dogs is way bigger than just genus? Cats and dogs are different families. If you are going genus to genus you are more talking about Felis (common cats), Leopardus, Lynx and Puma.
Actually that is the the difference between subspecies. They don't actually count as separate species despite the obvious differences in morphology.
Sounds like microevolution is just the things which you have been forced to accept and macroevolution is everything else. There does not seem to be anything about the processes which distinguishes one form the other.
Well the problem is that by claiming there is a clear distinction between macro and micro you are way off from the very start. While doing so allows you to accept one and dismiss the other it poorly describes the reality of a very fuzzy boundary between the two (the location of which is often up to language preference to an extent).
Actually they do, they'd just use different language to describe similar implications for the science.
That has more to do with the rarity of fossils and the huge number of different types of organisms which have existed (compared to a comparatively miniscule number of different star types)
A pity you dismiss entire fields of research based on arbitrary and vague criteria (macro v micro). You wouldn't find that acceptable if I did this with physics I assume, yet seem perfectly OK with doing it to biology.Though, holes in your scientific understanding, are nothing more than research opportunities.
YahuShuan
New member
Sorry, I'm not good at arguing, I didn't mean to use any weasel words.
How I understand macro-evolution from micro, is that macroevolution occurs as the evolution between genus to genus. Going from one number of chromosomes to a new number- going from cat to dog. I understand micro as going from wolf, to poodle. Speciation would count as micro to me. I might also say that new beneficial traits can occur in micro, as this is what I understand to be observed.
Am I way off here? Please let me know, I'm a physicist not a biologist.
The difference I see in observing a star collapse, verses something on the scale of macroevolution, is that physicists would not say that there are any observed "missing links" to the process. No self respecting biologist would ever say that all the links are found, they would say that they have yet to be discovered!
Though, holes in your scientific understanding, are nothing more than research opportunities.
Here's something I think these so called scientists haven't noticed. As I set the Starry Nights program in motion, in particular time increments, as it goes back in time, the further it goes back, the slower time moves. The longer a day or an hour gets...or seems. So I can easily see that when creation occured, it was in slow motion. So to speak. Makes sence in believing that the Creator has also been known to stop the Sun. I believe fully that when He said it took 6 "and the evening and the morning were" the day, that it took 6 24 hour period to do what He said He did, as He said He did it.
Science also knows that the further out they go in space, that time can actually go backwards. What are they gonna do with that :bang:
Tyrathca
New member
Wow.... You subjectively perceive time to slow down while watching a basic computer simulation of the stars movement in the past. You really showed those scientists. Nobel prize must be in the mail already. :hammer:
You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Time doesn't go backwards deeper in space, the travel of time is just the same here as it is everywhere (i.e. it follows the same physics, rate depends on factors relevant to relativity). I think you are confused with looking deep in space showing us the past. This is not time reversing, it just illustrates that light has a finite speed and it took a long time for it to get here.
One Eyed Jack
New member
You gotta break light speed for time to go backwards. Then you can get where you're going before you even leave.
Don't we love to demonize ol' Charlie here?
The real issue, is not Darwin. It is evolution. An evolution that does not need the hand of any intelligent designer. An evolution which fits within the generally accepted age of the earth, the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence, the biochemical evidence, physics, chemistry, etc.
On the other side we have a 2000+ year old book, cobbled together from pieces of original manuscripts that are missing, determined to be "god-breathed" by a bunch of mostly older men, used to justify all sorts of mean nasty things over the millenia.
I'll take door #1, thank you.
Can't be done.
Correct. Time is an abstract construct. It isn't a dimension.
YECs using Darwinism
YECs using Darwinism
There was an unusually fascinating portion of this show. Bob and Fred Williams are explaining why some birds in New Guinea are flightless, under a YEC scenario. Two things to note – 1) see how credible you think their reason is for the loss of the ability to fly, and 2) Listen to them clearly elucidate Darwinian evolution as a mechanism.
Starting at 19:44:
a) How long might it have taken for the predatory land animals to get to New Guinea (from the Ararat region)?
b) How fast would the population of birds grow in New Guinea, especially without pressure from predators?
c) Is the loss of flight due to a relatively simple (and thus more probable) mutation, or is it something that has happened in stages?
d) What is the chance that such a mutation would spread completely through the bird population and eradicate the ability to fly before the predators showed up?
e) Now that the predators are on-site, and the ability to fly would be beneficial to escape predation, is there some magic at work that forbids the “reverse” mutation?
YECs using Darwinism
There was an unusually fascinating portion of this show. Bob and Fred Williams are explaining why some birds in New Guinea are flightless, under a YEC scenario. Two things to note – 1) see how credible you think their reason is for the loss of the ability to fly, and 2) Listen to them clearly elucidate Darwinian evolution as a mechanism.
Starting at 19:44:
These are just birds, different kinds of birds that God created. And they lost their ability to fly. In this article they talk about how that may have happened. They say in part of the world, like in Indonesia, New Guinea, and Australia – parts of the world that it was harder for land-dwelling animals to get to. There were birds that got there first, as animals began to disperse around the world, beginning from the Middle-East.
The author here talks about the tropical thicket, how it can make it hard for these birds to take off.
… Creationists agree that natural selection occurs. … So you’ve got forest and rain forest, but also you don’t have predators. You don’t have land-dwelling predators that can kill these birds. So normally a bird taking off and flying away from a predator is a tremendous survival mechanism. But when there are no such predators, then the ability to take off and fly isn’t going to make it more likely that your descendants will have a better chance of survival than others that cannot fly.
So some of the offspring are going to … likely had a mutation that it couldn’t fly. But that’s going to favor them in some degree because the flight isn’t necessary to survive and reproduce. And over time they take over the population.
My questions:The author here talks about the tropical thicket, how it can make it hard for these birds to take off.
… Creationists agree that natural selection occurs. … So you’ve got forest and rain forest, but also you don’t have predators. You don’t have land-dwelling predators that can kill these birds. So normally a bird taking off and flying away from a predator is a tremendous survival mechanism. But when there are no such predators, then the ability to take off and fly isn’t going to make it more likely that your descendants will have a better chance of survival than others that cannot fly.
So some of the offspring are going to … likely had a mutation that it couldn’t fly. But that’s going to favor them in some degree because the flight isn’t necessary to survive and reproduce. And over time they take over the population.
a) How long might it have taken for the predatory land animals to get to New Guinea (from the Ararat region)?
b) How fast would the population of birds grow in New Guinea, especially without pressure from predators?
c) Is the loss of flight due to a relatively simple (and thus more probable) mutation, or is it something that has happened in stages?
d) What is the chance that such a mutation would spread completely through the bird population and eradicate the ability to fly before the predators showed up?
e) Now that the predators are on-site, and the ability to fly would be beneficial to escape predation, is there some magic at work that forbids the “reverse” mutation?
- Status