adolph nuttin up :)
Desputing Evolution or the bible
-
semantics
-
CC,
i would say that these white-to-black-to-white moths are evidence supporting evolution.Evidence not refuting it, well, i have a glass standing in front of my computer screen. That is evidence that does not refute a lot of things :)
-
@F_alk:
CC,
i would say that these white-to-black-to-white moths are evidence supporting evolution.Evidence not refuting it, well, i have a glass standing in front of my computer screen. That is evidence that does not refute a lot of things :)
and when i stand in front of the sun i go from pink to brown-y pink.
simple biochemistry. This does not prove genetics as it leaves an even harder question - that of irreducibible systems which i have brought up before. This one is simpler than many others (clotting, vasculature, sight, etc.) but evolution does not account for an irreducible system which without which there would be no mammals.
I am not denying evolution - goodness knows i support God’s use of an evolutionary schema to create the world (and my dad thinks i’m an idiot in this regard . . . ). Still, we can’t let these “scientists” get carried away with unscientific thinking and reasoning. -
@cystic:
@F_alk:
CC,
i would say that these white-to-black-to-white moths are evidence supporting evolution….and when i stand in front of the sun i go from pink to brown-y pink.
simple biochemistry.Yes, but the story of the moths is different, and not only simple biochemistry. Look up anything about the Peppered Moth,
e.g.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm (a creationist site) or
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html (an evolutionist site)This does not prove genetics as it leaves an even harder question - that of irreducibible systems which i have brought up before. This one is simpler than many others (clotting, vasculature, sight, etc.) but evolution does not account for an irreducible system which without which there would be no mammals.
Well, i found something on that,
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.htmlIt is about the Flagellum example, heavily biased towards evolutionism of course, but the flaws shown in the creationists arguments are to be taken seriously (for example: the flagellum is not irreducible, the TTSS (type III secretory system) uses about a third of the proteins of those proteins needed for the flagellum, but is a (though totally different) fully working system. It then goes on with the flawed logic used etc.
A much better paper is:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.htmlHere he shows that the irreducibility often is viewing things from one position only. He there gives a lot examples how so-called irreducible biochemical machines are in fact reducible (at least hypothetically, which is enough against that agrument IMHO, as it works with a very strong statement of “removal of any parts end the functionality”).
A very important flaw in this logic is:
taking only parts of the irreducible construct can have functionalities, even though they may be different.
There is a nice counter-example for the “irriducible moustrap” example.
See:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/Image6.gif
from the same page as above.I am not denying evolution - goodness knows i support God’s use of an evolutionary schema to create the world (and my dad thinks i’m an idiot in this regard . . . ).
Is he an evolutionist or “hard-core” creationist? Probably the second, right?
Still, we can’t let these “scientists” get carried away with unscientific thinking and reasoning.
No worries, that’s why i am here and watch you :) …. medics often fall to these ways of thinking and reasoning ;) :) ;)
-
ok, im too lazy to read anybody’s postings of websites, so here goes……
CREATIONISM IS TOTALLY WRONG!!! EVOLUTION IS WHAT HAPPENED, DEAL WITH IT!!!
lol, thats probably a major grenade right there. o well
-
ok, im too lazy to read anybody’s postings of websites, so here goes……
CREATIONISM IS TOTALLY WRONG!!! EVOLUTION IS WHAT HAPPENED, DEAL WITH IT!!!
lol, thats probably a major grenade right there. o well
ahhhh yes,
the “dud” grenade. -
@F_alk:
Yes, but the story of the moths is different, and not only simple biochemistry. Look up anything about the Peppered Moth,
e.g.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm (a creationist site) or
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html (an evolutionist site)Well, I took the time to read the above links and noticed something - neither of them support the claim of evoution.
The creationist site referenced only states that natural selection is observed to happen at a species level only. Moths are still moths. The evolutionist site provides the same.
The peppered moth story fits in perfectly with the idea of creationism. This is the same for all of the other “proofs” of evolution like Darwin’s finches. How does a moth changing into a different type of moth demonstrate evolution?
The only proof we have for evolution is the re-arrangement or degeneration of genetic information within a species.
-
Well, I took the time to read the above links and noticed something - neither of them support the claim of evoution.
Well, then their support for creationism is even weaker.
The creationist site referenced only states that natural selection is observed to happen at a species level only. Moths are still moths. The evolutionist site provides the same.
The creationist site puts emphasis on this, yes. The evolutionist site links natural selection and evolution, with natural selection being one of the “tools” that makes evolution work.
The peppered moth story fits in perfectly with the idea of creationism. This is the same for all of the other “proofs” of evolution like Darwin’s finches. How does a moth changing into a different type of moth demonstrate evolution?
So, god createrd all the species, or one being with a all-including gene pool, so that the other sub-species could “devolute” from there?
We can see that species change. We can see that they do it “on their own”, means without human influence. Also, the definition of species is something we should discuss.
If you look at the latin names of animals, where do you draw the “species defining” line?
After the first word (Genus)? Such as “Homo” in “Homo sapiens”?
Or after the second (species) or even later (sub-species)??
(btw, the 14 finches are all different species, but same Genus)Are wolves and dogs in the same species? No they are not, they are both in the same Genus “Canis”, but different species. And, man created dog…
thus it was not god to create all species.Or, did you not pay attention to your words and mean Genus when talking of species?
If so, when did Homo arrive, and were did Australopithecus go? Was Homo created, or did it evolve?So, the moths changed on sub-species level, agreed. But they are an example for “how nature changes”. Then we look further and see different species, who all of course are similar (if in the same Genus). We see species go extinct. We find material of species extinct for a long time, and of different species that (as we come closer to our time) look more and more alike the ones we know today.
Then we find possible mechanisms in nature, that allow for change. We see it happen on “small levels”, like in sub-species range (see above).
The only proof we have for evolution is the re-arrangement or degeneration of genetic information within a species.
We also see new information be created. We find microbes not degenerate, but gaining information (like more resistances to more and more antibiotics).
How can we not come to the conclusion, with the tools we have, with the timeline we have, that Geni and species evolve?
Notice: re-arrangement can create information.
Read this
acccee fiiiiiimnnnor sssttu
Information in there? Not much…
though, simple re-arragning makes it:
creationism is unscientific
Information in there: a lot!
Thus re-arranging information is the way how new information is created, this works for letters and for genetics (which has an even smaller set of letters).
Or would you say: “I have seen all letters and numbers, i don’t need any books, there will be nothing new? They are all only re-arrangements of the letters i know…. how boring. I want something new.”
You must, if you follow a consistent logic. -
i dont kno if anyone said this cuz i didnt bother reading all of it(cuz i’m lazy)…so i think that God created the first species…and then used evolution as a tool to create the rest…so i guess i’m in the middle…hooray for happy medium :D :D :D
-
Two claims taken from http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm
1. There is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old.
(No need to comment on this claim, make up your own mind)2. No culture’s history claims to go back further than about 5,000 years.
This claim is obviously false. The Carnegie Museum of Natural History has
a chronology of ancient egypt on their website. That chronology starts
in 5450 BC. (about 7400 years ago). -
I went on from that page, following one of their links.
Most funny:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=8
and
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=7It gets better at the bottom (with a real conspiracy theory, yay!), but the above two are enough to show that this person is as unscientific as you can be:
When talking physics, you should understand what you are talking about.
This person does not.
Some simple things:
(a) Light is affected by gravity. Just look up “gravitational lense”, the first time this was used it was a huge success for Einstein’s theory, with scientists being able to see the stars “behind” the sun during an eclipse.
(b) the problem that the author thinks black holes should “fix” is not the problem. Matter should not evenly be distributed, you come to this false conclusion only if you don’t think far enough. The whole paragraph is just utterly wrong.
© The claim that the light was cooled by Hau et.al. is totally wrong. The author has not read or not understood the publication (the paper comes from my field, and i have read it and i am sure i have understood it).
Light was slowed, indeed, by mainly two mechanisms. But, slowing light is “nothing new”, and understood and explained by physics. Just as the “fast light” (which is not really fast, it is just changing the form of the pulse so it appears as some light was faster), this has been shown frequently (as mentioned, but not understood on the site). The quote “NO PHYSICAL LAW PREVENTS ANYTHING FROM EXCEEDING THE SPEED OF LIGHT. IN TWO PUBLISHED EXPERIMENTS, THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS APPARENTLY EXCEEDED BY AS MUCH AS A FACTOR OF 100!” of course is wrong. Read your Einstein :)The author is right though, that at the moment physics discusses the possibilites of constants not being constant, and the effect that changes in the constants would/will have. Something that the author does not understand, if you take a look at the mentioning of the Cs clock.
A change in one constant will not go alone, but change other constants. A too big change would lead to a totally different physics.The notion of the speed of light not being constant though is ripped out of context, dotted with misunderstood papers and not understanding the consequences. Calling this Science, as the site does, is a very poor sign.
CC, you have very very bad “allies” indeed.
-
Oh F_alk.
certainly even the best-intended creationist makes mistakes. Some of us get in way over our heads. I keep to things i have mastered - genetics, biochemistry - and avoid the whole physics realm. Evidently like-minded individuals (w.r.t. creation) do not all do the same.
And of course you would not use flawed creationists arguements to dispute creation - that would be too easy, and one might easily use flawed evolutionists arguments in the same vein.
As for the “light”-discussions - i just assume that even Einstein had no idea what he was talking about and that every generation will have some wild new revelation about light that disputes that of earlier generations. who cares? 8) -
@cystic:
… I keep to things i have mastered - genetics, biochemistry - and avoid the whole physics realm.
very unfortunately for me :)
And of course you would not use flawed creationists arguements to dispute creation - that would be too easy, and one might easily use flawed evolutionists arguments in the same vein.
Well, i can use it to discredit one of the debaters ;)…. rethorics is part of debating…
btw, did you mean (flawed creationists) argument or flawed (creationists argument)…
as i have no problem in discrediting someone who reveals himself as (flawed debater) while someone who brings just one flawed argumetn does not deserve that treatment. Just to make that clear.As for the “light”-discussions - i just assume that even Einstein had no idea what he was talking about and that every generation will have some wild new revelation about light that disputes that of earlier generations. who cares? 8)
Hmmm…. Light has been an interesting topic, lively discussed during Newtons time (wether light was a particle or a wave), then with Maxwell it seemed it was “decided” (pro wave), but with the early Quantum Mechanics again the understanding changed/grew (wave-particle dualism). Now with Quantum Field Theory, we seem to have a pretty good grasp on what is happening.
The Ether that should be the medium for the electromagnetic wave is still another topic.So, we see that theories change and evolve or even the old one is thrown into the dustbin, whenever something new (feature/experiment) is discovered, revealed or proven. Up to now, i don’t see the need for a creationist theory, just as you probably see it.
Suggested Topics
