The Big Bang and Evolution

[ratiocinator]

You mentioned oil. All geology doe snot include oil.

No, I did not - yet more evidence that you are not paying attention.

I quoted Glenn Morton, who said (my added emphasis, as you seem unable to grasp the point)

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.

There is no need to read links that do not offer the evidence to support what they say. I offered you the opportunity to prove me wrong, you did not take it, because they offered no evidence. PROVE ME WRONG.

So, you asked for evidence, I (and others) supplied it, you didn't bother to read it - but still claim that it contained no evidence.

You really couldn't make this up...

 

[ArtieE]

Some evidence for evolution.

I see somebody posted this before. Try watching it.

 

[ChristineM]

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional. In ove 100 years no intermediate fossil has been found.



Are you so naive that you think all scientist accept evolution as a fact? Check the faculty at the ICR and Answersw in Genesis.



That simply isn't true. If you want to see it rejected on scientific grounds go the ICR website and read what they say about whale evolution or any other subject you care to. They will not mention the Bible. The check the same subjet at "Talk Origins," and tell me what scientific evidence they provide.

All fossils are transitional, that old creationist chestnut has been well debunked and refuted since you guys first though it up.

And i checked with the scientists and the national academy of science, not a creationist website that knows little of science but much about denying science because it messes up their bronze age mumbo jumbo.

Honey, i am not interested in what religious websites make up about science in just the same way you are not interested in evaluating the evidence of science. See where that gets you?

P.s. i do not lie, i have no god to lie for, therefore for you to pronounce that a comment i make us not true is highly insulting

 

[ChristineM]

Hello, all. I am a new member here but have long posted on Topix and before that on Yahoo. Topix has been in a bit of a decline and I understand they are closing posting off to overseas friends. I came here on the recommendation of one of my friends from there so I will give it a try. I identify myself as a historic Christian, a Buddhist, and a supporter of evidence-based science.

Good day good sir, it's excellent to see you.

I have seen ians posting here too but not for the last few days.

 

[Dogen]

If you understood genetics, you would understand it does



Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to provide just one example of something the ToE says that has been proven. Since you are new let me tell you I have quit reading links because they NEVER provide any evidence. If you want to cut wand paste the evidence a link provides, I will address it.

Do you no know that one a theory has been proved, it is no longer called a theory.



Then present them. Please include the "how" the observation is a mechanism for a change of species.



How about the LAWS of gravity or the LAWS of genetics. Notice they are no longer called theories. I will let you guess why. If you can';t figure it out ask me and I will explain why theories become laws.




Theories or hypothesis do not contradict anything. Only proof can contradict a theory.



I will give you one example to chew on---the laws of genetics has proved that for an offspring to receive a characteristic, the gene for that characteristic MUST be in the gene pool of the parents. IOW no gene for fins, which pakicetus did not have, no kid with fins. FYI a mutation CANNOT change a leg into a fin. It is even more absurd to say a mutation can change a nose into a blowhole.



Don't tell me, give me an example.

Theories are never "proven". That is not in the nature of theories. No theories have or will ever be proven. However, most theories are also facts. If you understand that then we are further along in the game. If you don't then we need to back up. Theories are not something that grows up to become something else. Theories are the top of the heap in science. Science progresses from idea, to hypothesis, to theory (that is oversimplified, but essentially correct).

If you don't read links then what you are saying is that you don't want objective evidence of anything. What you are saying is that what you are looking for is an opinion war in which you can never lose or win. Even taking quotes from links does not allow for the context. Sometimes learning takes work.

Evolution is, first of all, a fact. I am not saying that the THEORY of evolution is a fact. I am saying that evolution itself is a fact. It is observed and is real so we call things like that a fact. That has nothing to do with science. That has to do with our common understanding of objective reality. To illuminate what I mean compare gravity, evolution, germs, and planetary formation. All 4 are facts. All 4 can be observed at some level.

Evolution is observed in DNA (at least a dozen different ways to do this with DNA), it is observed in the fossil record, it is observed in laboratory experiments, and it is observed in the real world (field studies, etc).

Hopefully, you have already read the 29 evidences for Macroevolution (the count has gone up from 29, but the name has not changed).

Laws of science are just laws. A theory does not become a law. Actually, laws usually go the other way.and become generalizations or only useful within a range. Laws do not do what theories do. A Law is a relationship (usually mathematical) between variables. Theories explain and make predictions. They have nothing to do with one another except they are both parts of science.

Now, let's get down to mutations. A (new) mutation is a bit of genetic coding that has changed since your grandparents. Without getting into the causes of mutations they are, by definition, a change in the genetic code that occurred in your parents or in yourself at some point. Mutations alter DNA. If the DNA changes and the DNA controls everything else with respect to the formation and structure of beings, then there is a change. Wings or legs do not poof into being in a generation. How mutations are modified (or eliminated) is by selection.

I hope that brings you up to speed. This is science and how it works.

 

[Dogen]

Good day good sir, it's excellent to see you.

I have seen ians posting here too but not for the last few days.

Thanks, Chris. I am testing the waters. I am still posting on Topix, but I may just take up residence here or one of the other forums. I am still getting the feel of the system and it is not completely intuitive.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks, Chris. I am testing the waters. I am still posting on Topix, but I may just take up residence here or one of the other forums. I am still getting the feel of the system and it is not completely intuitive.

I'm still checking things out, this is the only thread I've posted on to date. Just uploaded my avatar after 3 rd attempt, now I'm working through the menus.

 

[Dogen]

Be specific. Quote what the ICR was teaching.
The important truth is that oil has NOTHING to do with evolution.

I doubt if the ICR was teaching anything about oil.

ICR is a pretty poor site for accurate information. But oil does have a lot to do with evolution in that oil (at least all that we have found on Earth so far) is the result of decayed organic material. It is possible for oil to form naturally without organics, but we have not found any confirmed sources of that on Earth. Oil sources can be dated (and I think this is pretty common practice) and organics can be indirectly detected. We have not found oil sources that are not organic from formation nor before life was well established on Earth.

 

[Dogen]

No it didn't.



Keep on saying it will eventually and you are just emphasing you do not understand genetics or mutations. Hint: Time will not change the laws of genetics.

Why would it? It is not mutations alone that cause new life forms or new structures. That comes from mutation AND selection. The laws of genetics don't really have anything to do evolution. They are just about how genes from different strands combine with the genetic material from the DNA of the plants they came from. If you are using them in a discussion of evolution then it is you that may not be understanding genetics or mutations.

 

[Dogen]

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it." Colin Patterson.

This is a strange quote. Natural selection IS a mechanism of evolution. This seems to be asking for the mechanism of the mechanism. It is also strange in that the mechanisms of natural selection ARE WELL known.

Natural selection

 

[Dogen]

That a wing is a modified leg is absurd. It shows how ignorant you are of genetics. It is even more absurd and genetically impossible for a nose to evolve into a blowhole.

His/Her understanding of genetics is correct. Genetically a wing is modified leg Hox genes. Just like hair and feathers, and .... unfortunately for your example, so are noses and blowholes.

Why in the world would a land animal surviving very well on land enter a hostile environment where its survival would be much less assured? That is natural selection in reverse.

LOL. No, water is protection from land predators. Hippos used to be fully land animals. Now they spend nearly all their time in the water. Whales still have occasional hind limbs.

I didn't read your link, but without reading it, I will guarantee it did not tell HOW it happened. It just said it did happen. Prove me wrong.

Or you could man/woman up and look.

 

[Dogen]

Evolution is not about oil, it is about how an A can evolve into a B. Can you explain that scientifically?

There is a whole arena of science that does that. There are a number of mechanisms that have been identified so far and there may be more yet to be discovered.

Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection are the main ones. Other things also have and effect on how populations change over time.

 

[omega2xx]

No, I did not - yet more evidence that you are not paying attention.

I quoted Glenn Morton, who said (my added emphasis, as you seem unable to grasp the point)





So, you asked for evidence, I (and others) supplied it, you didn't bother to read it - but still claim that it contained no evidence.

You really couldn't make this up...

I have ask others and you to cut and past the evidence. To date that has not been done.

 

[Dogen]

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional. In ove 100 years no intermediate fossil has been found.

Apparently what is poven true is that no creationist has checked in over 100 years. In an absolute sense, any species that had evolutionary offshoots is technically a transitional. There are many many transitionals known, both major and minor transitions. Most species of Homo were transitional to us (homo sapiens sapiens).

Are you so naive that you think all scientist accept evolution as a fact? Check the faculty at the ICR and Answersw in Genesis.

Oh, I don't think you want to go there! Most of the ICR and AIG crowds never set the scientific world on fire. Still, there are a few scientists that are creationists. But most of that group are not biologists. It is pretty easy to be a creationist if you are an astronomer, not so easy if you are a geneticist. What you find among "scientists" that are creationists are engineers, astronomers, physicists (rarer), MD's, computer SCIENTISTS. Not to malign any of those professions, but they are not experts in biology. Further, those lists of creationists are puffed up with people who are only mildly sympathetic or who are dead.

That simply isn't true. If you want to see it rejected on scientific grounds go the ICR website and read what they say about whale evolution or any other subject you care to. They will not mention the Bible. The check the same subjet at "Talk Origins," and tell me what scientific evidence they provide.

ICR only works for people who do not already understand science. Once you do it is absolute nonsense. Those sites are for believers who have already rejected science or are looking for reasons to do so. They present a lot of jibber-jabber and sciencey-sounding things, but no research evidence. What they try to do is nitpick science to death and claim that science does not know this and does not know that,..... even in areas where science DOES know. In other words, they lie..

Talk Origins has or will rebut anything on those sites AND provide links to the scientific literature.

 

[Dogen]

I'm still checking things out, this is the only thread I've posted on to date. Just uploaded my avatar after 3 rd attempt, now I'm working through the menus.

Is there a way to show the date and time of posts or posts that are since my last visit?

 

[omega2xx]

All fossils are transitional, that old creationist chestnut has been well debunked and refuted since you guys first though it up.

The saddest excuse in the fossil record is that all fossils are transitional. "Do pakicetus evolved into a whale in one generation. Why do they still show about 6 or 7 fossils from pakicetus to whales?

And i checked with the scientists and the national academy of science, not a creationist website that knows little of science but much about denying science because it messes up their bronze age mumbo jumbo.

What did they tell you and what evidence did they offer?

Honey, i am not interested in what religious websites make up about science in just the same way you are not interested in evaluating the evidence of science. See where that gets you?

Sweetie I have not mentioned religion and ICR is based on science, not religion.

P.s. i do not lie, i have no god to lie for, therefore for you to pronounce that a comment i make us not true is highly insulting

Saying a comment is not true, is not calling you a liar. It is saying you believe something is true that is not, or at least something for which you have no evidence.

 

[Dogen]

The saddest excuse in the fossil record is that all fossils are transitional. "Do pakicetus evolved into a whale in one generation. Why do they still show about 6 or 7 fossils from pakicetus to whales?

All the fossils from pakicetus to whales are transitional. Do you know what transitional means?

What did they tell you and what evidence did they offer?

It is disappointing that you want to argue against evolution but don't seem to know that much about it.

Sweetie I have not mentioned religion and ICR is based on science, not religion.

No, they are based on Biblical Creationism. They are quite clear about that in their own statements:
Foundational Principles | The Institute for Creation Research

Science works in a way where the conclusion is LAST. Biblical Creationism is based on the conclusion being a required premise, to begin with. That is the opposite of science.

Saying a comment is not true, is not calling you a liar. It is saying you believe something is true that is not, or at least something for which you have no evidence.

The evidence is on their website. It is based on religion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

They are both grossly incomplete philosophies full of contradictions and good observations.
They are both wrongly attributed to the category of 'science'; when they are both more than half guess-work;
and rely more on a 'science of the gaps' narrative than on rigorous logic.

Because they both entirely ignore the argument from design, the chaotic nature of their narratives
resembles a process of monkeys randomly typing at keyboards.

What a silly claim. The exact same scientific method that helped us figure out how electrons work so you can type on this computer is the EXACT SAME scientific method that has established the theory of evolution. Unlike religion where you can pick and choose which parts to 'believe' and which parts to ignore, the scientific method remains consistent. If you reject the scientific method that enabled us to reach the conclusions we've reached about evolution then you also have to reject the scientific method that enabled us to conclude that the Earth orbits around the sun. Or the scientific method that has enabled us to predict the actions and reactions of electrons sufficiently for you to use your computer. Virtually all of the scientists who use the scientific method is sciences that you consider to be REAL SCIENCE also accept evolution, because they understand that evolution science is based upon the EXACT SAME scientific method that THEY use is their branch of science. What is it that YOU think YOU know about the scientific method that those who employ it on a daily basis don't?

 

[omega2xx]

Theories are never "proven". That is not in the nature of theories. No theories have or will ever be proven.

There use to be a theory that there was only one blood type. It has been PROVEN there is more than one. It has been proven that all living matter contains DNA. They don't give nobel prizes for opinions.

However, most theories are also facts.

Theories by definition are not facts.

If you understand that then we are further along in the game. If you don't then we need to back up. Theories are not something that grows up to become something else. Theories are the top of the heap in science. Science progresses from idea, to hypothesis, to theory (that is oversimplified, but essentially correct).

If you think a theory is a fact, we will never advance.

If you don't read links then what you are saying is that you don't want objective evidence of anything. What you are saying is that what you are looking for is an opinion war in which you can never lose or win. Even taking quotes from links does not allow for the context. Sometimes learning takes work.

I read links for over 20 years. Not one offered any scientific evidence, so i quit.

Evolution is, first of all, a fact.

The present one fact in the TOE that has been proved. Don't forget the HOW.

I am not saying that the THEORY of evolution is a fact. I am saying that evolution itself is a fact. It is observed and is real so we call things like that a fact. That has nothing to do with science. That has to do with our common understanding of objective reality. To illuminate what I mean compare gravity, evolution, germs, and planetary formation. All 4 are facts. All 4 can be observed at some level.

The are all facts but the DO NOT prove evolution. You really don't understand evolution.

]Evolution is observed in DNA (at least a dozen different ways to do this with DNA), it is observed in the fossil record, it is observed in laboratory experiments, and it is observed in the real world (field studies, etc).

Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to give one, just one example of observed evolution and the mechanism that caused it.

Hopefully, you have already read the 29 evidences for Macroevolution (the count has gone up from 29, but the name has not changed).

There is not scientific evidence for macroevolution. Prove me wrong.

Laws of science are just laws.

They become laws when they have been proven.

A theory does not become a law.

It becomes a law when it has been proven.

Actually, laws usually go the other way.and become generalizations or only useful within a range. Laws do not do what theories do. A Law is a relationship (usually mathematical) between variables. Theories explain and make predictions. They have nothing to do with one another except they are both parts of science.

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Now, let's get down to mutations. A (new) mutation is a bit of genetic coding that has changed since your grandparents. Without getting into the causes of mutations they are, by definition, a change in the genetic code that occurred in your parents or in yourself at some point. Mutations alter DNA. If the DNA changes and the DNA controls everything else with respect to the formation and structure of beings, then there is a change. Wings or legs do not poof into being in a generation. How mutations are modified (or eliminated) is by selection.

Nothing you said in the paragraphs is true and even if it was, it does snot explain how a mutation can be the mechanism for a change of species.

I hope that brings you up to speed. This is science and how it works.

Let me offer you some sound advice. Get a better education in real science.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What I don't understand is that if there is so much evidence why has no one presented any of it. Siti just tried but nothing he said can be proved as being evidence of the BB.

There is no way you can trace the presence of background radiation back to a source billion of yeas ago. That is absurd and anyone with an open mind would know it is.

Omega... there's a HUGE difference between Siti not providing the evidence you asked for and you simply not comprehending the evidence Siti provided. Anyone who understands basic physics understands that in this case you fall into the latter category. Your ignorance of the subject matter doesn't invalidate it, it simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. .