• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation - Evolution Continuum

KBC1963

Active Member
Inca,
I have read this thread from the beginning for about 3 to 4 pages and have watched as many of the others here seem to find the best answer to your cut and paste style is to just say that your sources are no good or to downgrade you as a person, which is a shame because I have also read many of the arguement that you have brought forth and regardless of whether you thought them up or someone else did I would still like to know the exact reason why each of those cut and paste items are wrong.
I have always wondered why a cell that divides itself would ever "evolve" into something that could only reproduce itself with sex, it just doesn't make logical sense that this would be the end result of an evolutionary process as it has been taught to me.
I would like to thank all those that thought that bashing Inca or his method was more important than just simply disproving each of the arguements with some real proof, I would have to say that cromagnon man is not extinct but is now hiddin inside many of those in this forum maybe that is the way evolution really works it just builds a new shell over the old so maybe we don't have to dig into the earth to find evidence of evolution we can start right here with cromagnon/present man
 
Mr_Spinkles said:
YawgmothsAvatar-- here are the arguments Dan put forth against evolution.

dan said:
Evolution fails to account for four things:
1) Life is unique
2) Complex animals appear suddenly
3) Change in the past has been limited
4) Change in the present is limited

1) The odds of a single molecule being formed from carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur (assuming these elements already exist) are pretty intimidating. 1/10 (to the 160th power). For one protein to be created on earth would take 10 (to the 243 power) years. that would require more matter than exists in the whole universe. So, your theory would have to explain away those calculations for anyone to take it seriously (and it does not, it merely says, "well, if it didn't happen, then we wouldn't be here," which is circular reasoning at its best). Also, I'm still waiting to see science create its own protein out of nothing.

2) Based on the fossils and erosion that we have been studying for years, a single creative act is the only way to explain complex organisms that pop up out of nowhere. There are no other links, and there are whole chains missing from these categories, but they are conveniently ignored by evolutionists. In the same groups of fossils as the most basic of organisms we find some more complex animals that are still not understood fully.

3) Since recorded history we have yet to observe a change from one species to another. Has evolution stopped? or is it on a break? No one has ever been able to observe the slightest example of evolution. It only exists on paper.

4) There are no exisitng demostrable leaps from one species to another; in other words, we have one species that we conclude changes into another species, but we do not have the missing link. There is no link connecting ANY TWO SPECIES THAT DOES OR HAS EVER EXISTED. It is all on paper, and no where else.
Thanks lots. I appreciate it.

1. Ever heard of the Miller/Urey experiements? They were pretty famous.

Check here.

I won't bother with long drawn out quotes. Here is a summary:
1. Create a closed system that simulates the early Earth.
2. Add methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water.
3. Wait.
4. Observe your very own amino acids!

2. Then why are there dozens of transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx and Osteolepis?

I am curious which 'entire chains' are missing. Which ones would they be?

3. From here.
Scientific American said:
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

4. Like I said previously, there are dozens of 'missing links.'
Don't believe me?
Try here.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
KBC1963-

perhaps you missed the posts where I point out the flaws in the sources (many exact reasons) and not downgrade Inca as a person?

anyway, the reason sex started is that it is the best way to introduce variety into the genetic mix. Without sex you simply have exact copies of organisms, very low potential for change and adaptation, save by random mutation. Sex is a genetic roll of the dice with different results each time you try, wich is great for adaptaion and change.

and there are transitional forms that reproduce both asexually and sexually, both in multi and single celled organisms.

check out:
http://www.microbe.org/microbes/reproduction.asp
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/biosex1.html

I don't know what you learned about evolution but sexual reproduction is a very logical step in the process. And no one said cromagnon was gone as cromagnon is Homo Sapien, we said that Homo Neandertalis, Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis were gone allong with all the other hominids.

hope this helps

Dan-
Adaptation is the prerequisite for evolution. Given a few more generations the large beaked morphs and the small beaked morphs may stop inter-breeding and go thier seperate ways genetically. This has been observed in several species including viruses and bacteria wich as I stated earlier evolve at fantastic rates. Take SIDS to AIDS, definate genetic evolution from a chimp virus to a human virus. Evolution via adaptation to a new environment.

Anyway I still don't see why God couldn't have used evolution as his 'physical law' for making humans (and everything elce)... god certenally had plenty of time to do it in.

wa:do
 

dan

Well-Known Member
I like the Buddy Christ. "The Catholic church does not make mistakes...OK, mistakes have been made."

The thing I don't get about this experiment is how you go from nothing to an organized earth with lightening storms and the like; you gotta start at the beginning if you want me to follow. There are enough problems with that experiment to make it inadmissible as any kind of proof, so find something a little more comprehensive; and even with your experiment you've only arrived at amino acids. The next steps are the hard ones.

As far as the speciation goes, nothing conclusive is contained in what you shared; it's still conjecture in a white lab coat. The experiment mentioned doesn't really mean anything considering how the scientists manipulated the environment so as to make it unlike any natural one.
 
so dan-- evolution is a bunch of theory with little evidence to back it up, so we can reject it....but creationism has been comprehensively replicated in a lab? I am not following your reasoning....
 

dan

Well-Known Member
Are you familiar with the philosopher William James? He stated that our "passional" sides direct our conclusions more than our rational sides. Evolution will be irrefutable for anyone who wants it to be. Creationism will be the same for whoever wants. All the evidence in the world will never get you to say you're wrong for one simple reason: you don't want to be. It's the same with everyone else in here; they all think they're right and everyone else is an idiot. It's human nature and you and I are no different. I, however, happen to know with perfect knowledge that I speak the truth. As you are just like everyone else, you will, no doubt, respond that I cannot possibly "know" anything. If that's not your answer it will simply be a question as to how I could possibly think I "know" such things. You will appeal to human reason and philosophy to try to define and encapsulate me, because it makes you feel better to think you understand me. That's fine, I'm used to it; but you will be wrong. I know that God is real, that He's all-powerful, and that evolution is a false human theory. It is not that I "only think I know," or that I have "faith" or anything else like that. I know these things are true with the same conviction with which you can affirm the reality of your own existence. I will not share exactly how I know with you (and I am aware of how juvenile or irrational that will seem to you, so please spare me the histrionics). I am not trying to change you, just as you are not trying to do the same to me, so I'm just gonna drop this debate, because it appears none of the participants (myself included) are capable of dealing with this subject correctly.
 
dan said:
I like the Buddy Christ. "The Catholic church does not make mistakes...OK, mistakes have been made."

The thing I don't get about this experiment is how you go from nothing to an organized earth with lightening storms and the like; you gotta start at the beginning if you want me to follow. There are enough problems with that experiment to make it inadmissible as any kind of proof, so find something a little more comprehensive; and even with your experiment you've only arrived at amino acids. The next steps are the hard ones.

As far as the speciation goes, nothing conclusive is contained in what you shared; it's still conjecture in a white lab coat. The experiment mentioned doesn't really mean anything considering how the scientists manipulated the environment so as to make it unlike any natural one.
If by the beginning you mean the beginning of the earth, I am afraid that is off topic. I hate to pull the 'off topic' card on you, but this is about evolution.

Why is it inadmissible as is?

I'm afraid your last argument uses a sort of cruel circular logic.

If scientific tests won't convince you, then here is one observed in nature:

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)
Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
From here.

Even if we can't agree on the beginning of the Earth, we can agree that Buddy Christ is awesome.

This may be my last post for a couple of weeks. I do not know what my ability to access the internet will be.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
That observation is still inconclusive. It shows only adaptation and does nothing more than hint at the possibility of it leading to speciation.

Perhaps it is off topic, but I wrap the theory of evolution up in the same group as the Big Bang theory and all that jazz. My apologies.

As far as it being inadmissibly, I feel that an experiment that wrought with criticism and debate holds very little sway in an argument. Even your article talked of the problems people pointed out. Whether the experiment is valid or not is not conclusively shown.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
wow, that must have been a helluva' good experiment.

Now, did you document it so that others can repeat it?

or was it a one time only sort of experiment, like the cold-fusion experiments?

Just curious here, but what did god create for you as a proof in your experiment?

wa:do
 

dan

Well-Known Member
You won't be able to understand if I told you. I realize this is a cop-out, but it's very valid, and I'll show you just how valid. There are many things that are beyond our comprehension to explain, and yet they are true. We can know many things without being able to explain it. I'll give you an example. If you can answer this question I'll explain in all its glory how I found my answer. I assume you have tasted salt before. I bet you recognize its taste and could distinguish salt from sugar or Tide. I do not doubt for one second that you know what salt tastes like. Well, pretend I have never tasted salt before in my life. Tell me what it tastes like. With only your words, help me to understand your sensory experience.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
So you're saying that your creationism experiments are based on sensory experience?

Our emotions and our senses are at times closely linked. You explained the ideas of William James--aren't you a little worried that perhaps your 'passional' side of wanting creationism to be true is affecting your sensoty perception? I'm not saying you are wrong here, but just think of the possibility.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
I have thought of the possibility, don't worry. My experience was and was not what you might call sensory, but I'm just showing you using terms that you'll understand and that you'll accept. You may proceed.
 
the challenge to describe salt is a dificult one, how can my words describe salt? salt is tasted , experienced , it is a molecule our bodies have evolved a sensitivity to over teh years of our evolution , such knowledge can only be understood scientificaly

i shall illustrate how we can help you understand salt without actually placing salt in your mouth : although this is not the considering that salt is one 5 primary taste buds, and a taste your and my body create for the sensory slave called our minds , all i have to do is stimulate those buds assciated with salt by electircity or what have you and your mind will react and you will taste salt in your mouth.

you pose a serius circular argument , to hear about your experiment that we will not understand, i honestly do not see the harm in explaining , and i assure you , sir , you would be supprised at what i can comprehend, we must answer your riddle , a nearly impossible one since it requires us to explain a taste and the obvious defence for your claim is a side debate , distraction as it were .

if you are able to prove creation works then there is no need to hide it, tell us we are unable to understand or any other such distraction , who would have believe darwin if he posed his theories like you have posed yours ?
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
dan said:
If you can answer this question I'll explain in all its glory how I found my answer. I assume you have tasted salt before. I bet you recognize its taste and could distinguish salt from sugar or Tide. I do not doubt for one second that you know what salt tastes like. Well, pretend I have never tasted salt before in my life. Tell me what it tastes like. With only your words, help me to understand your sensory experience.

Amusing question, but not an entirely appropriate way to make your point. The problem? Even if you have not tasted salt and I have, you still have the same senses as I do. Therefore, I CAN describe the taste of salt to you, by describing the effect it has on my senses. Because what we call “taste” is usually a combination of factors called FLAVOUR (the combination of taste, smell, texture, and other physical features), describing the “taste” of salt is basically a lot easier to do than you would think. Salt tastes strongest when it is introduced to the tip or sides of your tongue, and it does not cling to your teeth. The more salt you use, the less capable you are of detecting it. Too much salt makes you thirsty. Unlike many other tastes, salt has no odor.

Here’s a more appropriate question to ask to illustrate your point. Imagine that I am blind and I have always been this way. Now, how would you describe BLUE to me, so that I might understand?

There is no way to describe color to a blind person because you cannot use sensory associations to describe it: they HAVE no sight, and sight is NOT caught up with other senses, like taste is. And, in truth, there is no way to describe color to yourself. The only way you could do this would be to describe emotions that certain colors invoke, or sensory experiences they remind you of.

Example: We know that “green” is “the hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between yellow and blue, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 490 to 570 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue is that of the emerald or somewhat less yellow than that of growing grass; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues”. We know this means that green is therefore just a particular wavelength of light, which we sense “green”. We know that “green” is the color of plant life and that it reminds us of health and nature. We know that “green” is the color of money and reminds us of success and greed. We know that “green” is supposedly used in movies in sex scenes because of its association to that activity.

Yet what does green really LOOK like?

And it is also interesting to note that psychologists believe that each individual human sees each wavelength of light in a way different than other humans, meaning what you call “green” may look like my “blue”… and yet we both register the color as “green”. So if we point to a leaf we will both say that it is “green” even though we do not see it the same way, supposedly because we have both been trained to call the color of leaves green and NOT because we have ever really found a way to define green other than by defining its associations: things that reflect the “green” wavelength, and the wavelength itself.

However, the inability to explain a situation does NOT mean that situation really exists. In my opinion sight and sound and taste ARE illusions: they are WAYS of sensing things out in the universe, but reflect those things in a symbolic rather than "real" way. Your experience of "God" could very easily, in my book, be an illusion as well, which is symbolic of some other piece of reality.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
It is appropriate, though, as you have the same senses as me, but you're just not familiar with the ones I would refer to. They're perfectly functioning, but you just wouldn't understand them if I explained them to you; so my example is appropriate, while yours does not fit the situation.
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
Wrong. Because we have the same senses, and because what you refer to as taste is really a combination of senses (smell, touch...), I would be able to describe to you what salt "tastes" like even if you have never experienced it. Whereas if you did not have sight, I would NOT be able to explain color to you because sight is NOT associated with other senses like taste is, and therefore I could not use your other senses to describe an element of sight. If your attempt to describe God were truly analogous to your “describe the taste of salt” example, then you WOULD be able to describe God and I would be able to understand. However, you say that you CANNOT describe God so that I could understand… which makes the “Describe color to a blind person” example more appropriate.
 
dan-- Did your experience that you cannot describe to us prove the existence of God to you? I hope, then, that you realize that evolution in no way contradicts the existence of God any more than tectonic plates or a billion other scientific theories do. Is it unacceptable to say "God causes evolution which causes humans, just as God causes tectonic plates which cause mountains"?
 
Top