It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritconnections
But you have to admit that there are some pretty brilliant theogians teaching in prestigious universities all around the world. I would be hesitant to call them deluded.


weeeeeeelllll.....

I mentioned earlier to humbleone how sometimes it's better to say nothing. So, I leave it there, heheh.

We do have something in common though. I saw your thread on entheogens, I agree they are useful for healing. I just see it all rather different as you'd probably expect.

cheers




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
So repair mechanisms are 100% perfect then?

Nope. And I didn't mean to imply this. I think that mutations induced by the occassional random stochastic accident, are not the driving force behind large scale evolution. The large scale changes in morphology that drive formation of new forms are likely to be found in what are called 'natural genetic engineering mechansims.'


Mutations are not important? Do mutator polymerases produce 100% beneficial mutations?

No to both, and I didn't mean to imply either. Mutations are important, I just don't believe single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP's) to be important. Mutator polymerases do not produce 100% beneficial mutations. What they do is increase mutation at specific loci in response to some sort of cellular stress. So in that sense, they are not random in terms of timing, genomic location, or mechanism of induction. However the exact changes that are made cannot be described as prescribed or anything.



So, you'll need to be clearer than just saying they 'actively maintain beneficial genes' and 'large chunks of DNA'. Are we talking about frameshifts, duplications, deletions, inversions, translocations, and horizontal processes here?

Okay... perhaps I should have been more clear. The systems I've been referring to thus far are prokaryotic. So we are not talking about any of the above... save for horizontal processes.

If you have a bacterium... let's say E. coli for the sake of ease. You transform this bacteria so that it now contains antibiotic resistance genes. The genes are maintained on extrachromosomal DNA called plasmids. As long as the genes, are under selective pressure, the bacterium maintains the plasmid, and under long enough selection will actually integrate the beneficial genes into its genome. However, if you remove selective pressure, the bacterium will cease carrying the plasmid. The bacteria literally excrete the plasmid into the surrounding medium. No sense replicating useless DNA. In fact, if selective pressure is removed for long enough, genes that have migrated into the bacterial chromosome will eventually be excised. So were not talking about a change in allele frequency, rather it's the genomes of bacteria in particular are extremely plastic. Perhaps you read the Woese paper that came out in Nature... maybe Science this month; it calls for a new view on prokaryotic life.



What kind of modifications?

The loss of non-essential genes for one. The activation of mobile genetic elements like transposons, the induction internal genetic engineering systems, etc. Mutation, just not victimized mutation, but active, biochemically driven mutation.



You said that these genes will increase in frequency. I understand the difference between alleles and genes, so are you saying that the increase the actual number of the same genes? Is this gene duplication?

The genes will increase within the population or decrease. It's not a change in existing alleles. Bacteria don't acquire resistance to things by inheriting alleles to genes they already have. Often it's a completely new gene that there's not really a homolog for. For example penicillin resistance is endowed by beta-lactamases. These enzymes don't currently evolve from some precursor, they are acquired via horizontal transfer. They can be acquired in conjunction with multiple resistance genes, but are not an increase in alleles in the sense you're thinking. It's an increase of gene frequency in the population, but they are for the most part, new alleles, not variants of genes already present. This of course varies case by case, but generally speaking.


So vertical evolution plays no part in antibiotic resistance?

For the most part, no.


Mutations are not a pathway that can lead to resistance? A mutation rate of 10-8 cannot produce even a single point mutation that confers resistance? That an initial resistance could not be enhanced by further mutation?

Mutations can confer resistance, but it's not generally the way it happens, and it certainly isn't the way resistance genes occur in hospitals and patients. They're usually passed via horizontal transfer. Generally the mutations that occur via some mutation are the loss of function type, a slowed transporter, etc. This usually results in a loss of fitness relative to other members of the population when selective pressure is removed. This isn't the case the genes acquired by HGT. They are generally just as fit as their non-resistant counterparts.


Evolution of drug resistance in experimental populations of Candida albicans.Cowen LE, Sanglard D, Calabrese D, Sirjusingh C, Anderson JB, Kohn LM.
J Bacteriol. 2000 Mar;182(6):1515-22.

Yes, this is an example of resistance conferred by a mutation, undeniably.


Chance, mutations, & natural selection. Looks like a darwinian process to me. [ABE: also I know this is candida but the process in bacteria would be the same, no?

Well, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call the mutations chance... while I've not read the paper in detail, the nature of the mutations aren't discussed. Perhaps they're chance mutations, perhaps not. However the process in bacteria is NOT the same for a couple of reasons. Fluconazole is a synthetic drug, antibiotics are not. Antibiotics are natural products produced by organisms. For antibiotics to exist, its necessary for the antibiotic producing organisms to be resistant. Hence antibiotic resistance genes exist as necessary consequence of antibiotic existence. The genes have been swapped around between different bacteria for a long time. The origins of antibiotic resistance genes is antibiotic producing organisms. The origin of drug resistance in the case you've cited above is likely a change at an enzymes active site conferring different binding constants, not a novel function, like Beta-lactamase for example.


So the nylonase genes were not produced by any sort of mutation?

Wow... I must be doing a poor job of explaining myself. They are certainly a consequence of a genetic change... a mutation. But, IMO, it would appear the nature of the mutations is not random.... more of those 'natural genetic engineering' mechanisms that I keep referring to. My issue is not with mutation per se, but the nature of said mutation.

Anyway... I'm out of space more later.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I have returned. Where are we now? Mutations and stuff?

Did anyone find an evolutionary explanation for magnetism, genetic code, and atomic stuff?

Some of that stuff looks pretty well engineered to me. That's a pretty unlikely "accident" from a scientific standpoint.

I am a creationist, but certainly you could have evolution occuring, but only with the foundation that the process was "created" first.

Evolution, in itself, is never going to explain everything, it never will. It will allways hit a dead end of "how did it all start in the first place."

No amount of thick learned textbooks will ever explain away creation. We could argue back and forth, 24 hours a day, for the next 10 years, but there is no way you can budge creation.

It is a pointless argument, which will continually end up at a creation point, the point of "nothing," then "something." It is unavoidable.

Troy



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Evolution, in itself, is never going to explain everything, it never will. It will allways hit a dead end of "how did it all start in the first place."

I'm positive this has been said repetitively before.. but no-one has said the TOE explains everything. The TOE offers an explanation of what happens after life begins. What causes abiogenisus is a seperate subject.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Did anyone find an evolutionary explanation for magnetism, genetic code, and atomic stuff?


magnetism and atomic stuff are physics, not biology
genetic code, that's more something abiogenesis would tackle, so it's chemistry



Some of that stuff looks pretty well engineered to me. That's a pretty unlikely "accident" from a scientific standpoint.


just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen




I am a creationist, but certainly you could have evolution occuring, but only with the foundation that the process was "created" first.


well, saying there is an omnipotent creator is just lazy
why?
here's how a discussion can go:
Q: what created the omnipotent creator?
A: nothing, it always existed and is beyond our comprehension

[qupte]
Evolution, in itself, is never going to explain everything, it never will. It will allways hit a dead end of "how did it all start in the first place."


you confuse evolution with the other sciences



No amount of thick learned textbooks will ever explain away creation. We could argue back and forth, 24 hours a day, for the next 10 years, but there is no way you can budge creation.


you can't budge the story of santa for how all the presents end up under the trees either
doesn't mean it's right



It is a pointless argument, which will continually end up at a creation point, the point of "nothing," then "something." It is unavoidable.
Troy


there has NEVER been a point in the history of the universe when there was "nothing"
something has always existed
whether it be a singularity or a whole universe



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
"there has NEVER been a point in the history of the universe when there was "nothing" something has always existed whether it be a singularity or a whole universe"


Really? Then how did it get here? It's just there? How does that explain anything? You've allready faultered right there. At least I can say it was created. And I can say that something was there to create the mathematics, mechanics, energy, time, and material involved in the construction of the universe and it's parts.


"you can't budge the story of santa for how all the presents end up under the trees either doesn't mean it's right"


Santa? How does this even relate to Santa?


"you confuse evolution with the other sciences"


Umm, no, it's not confusion. I'm just lumping accidental theories together. If these theories are true, they must work together somehow.

Let me sum up what Science likes us to believe. Everything was just there. It blew up or something. We have nice spheres and orbiting planets. We have seasons. Lightening struck or a rock or something fell on earth. Things accidentally mutated into fish and stuff. Monkeys came from lizards or fish or something. Brains developed, and here we humans are. And all this happened without one bit of creative power. Wait a minute I forgot about the evolving trees and stuff. There we go.

Of course I'm not explaining it like the text books or anything. But I think I understand the theories enough to get the idea.

Creation is an unchangeable truth. Science can't do a thing about it. Arguments against it can't change it. That's about as simple as I can put it.

I don't wish to be your enemy, we are simply at a disagreement point. You are certainly free to believe what you like. I cannot force you to believe something.

Take care,

Troy

[edit on 2-2-2007 by cybertroy]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallikak
The large scale changes in morphology that drive formation of new forms are likely to be found in what are called 'natural genetic engineering mechansims.'


Yeah, that's Shapiro's line of work.

But at this point the evidence is pretty ambiguous, no? There is no real clear evidence of deterministic directed mutations?


No to both, and I didn't mean to imply either. Mutations are important, I just don't believe single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP's) to be important. Mutator polymerases do not produce 100% beneficial mutations. What they do is increase mutation at specific loci in response to some sort of cellular stress. So in that sense, they are not random in terms of timing, genomic location, or mechanism of induction. However the exact changes that are made cannot be described as prescribed or anything.


Yeah, don't be going all JAD'ish on me (I won't say his name, he may come and troll this thread, I think he's a bit like beetlejuice - davison, davison....nooooooo!!!)

That's OK, just staking out the boundaries. Well, we know that genes are interactive, so it's not surprising that SNP is not the only factor, even the major proponent of evo-devo sees her findings within Darwinian evolution.

And to the environment the mutations induced by polymerases are random?

As far as I can tell, these mutator polymerases produce random mutations in that the outcome of the mutation is not correlated to the environment. So, we have a mechanism that is sensitive to environmental stress that allow mutations to occur more freely, enhancing mutation rate, some are targeted to particular areas of the genome, some favor particular types of changes. Is this 100%, do these mutator polymerases also enable mutations to occur elsewhere? Is it probabilistic?


Okay... perhaps I should have been more clear. The systems I've been referring to thus far are prokaryotic. So we are not talking about any of the above... save for horizontal process.

If you have a bacterium... let's say E. coli for the sake of ease. You transform this bacteria so that it now contains antibiotic resistance genes. The genes are maintained on extrachromosomal DNA called plasmids. As long as the genes, are under selective pressure, the bacterium maintains the plasmid, and under long enough selection will actually integrate the beneficial genes into its genome. However, if you remove selective pressure, the bacterium will cease carrying the plasmid. Perhaps you read the Woese paper that came out in Nature... maybe Science this month; it calls for a new view on prokaryotic life.


Yeah, I read the Woese paper. Very interesting. So HGT is an important evolutionary mechanism. How do these organisms produce novel genes?

Because from extrapolation, HGT can't really be the major source of variation. If prokaryotics depend on swapping genes they already possess, then they will be just swapping the same genes over and over, no?

So, If they 'need' an entirely new gene, then mutations are required?


The loss of non-essential genes for one. The activation of mobile genetic elements like transposons, the induction internal genetic engineering systems, etc. Mutation, just not victimized mutation, but active, biochemically driven mutation.


But the mutations they produce are essentially random?

Are transposons targeted? Do they produce a single mutation that fills the need of the cell? Or are they just mutations that are random to the needs of the organism and in the particular environment it finds itself?



So vertical evolution plays no part in antibiotic resistance?

For the most part, no.


I see a lot of literature that suggests otherwise. Levy showed a while back how mutations can produce and enhance resistance. The fact that prokaryotics swap genes so readily and excessively is no doubt important in resistance and no doubt underlies why it is so much a problem. It does make pure sense that HGT speeds evolution, some organism develops particularly adaptive genes by mutational processes that are non-deterministic, then these genes are readily swapped between prokaryotics. Variation and selection, enhanced by HGT.

However, we still have to trace these genes back to some point in the past. If the genes were derived from an original source that escaped into the environment and passed these genes on by HGT, then we have to wonder how these organisms acquired these genes.

If I took a colony of prokaryotic clones with low resistance (is this MCI?), then challenged them with an antibiotic, would resistance be enhanced by mutation? I assume HGT from elsewhere could not be an issue. Would these mutations be random in that (1) we could not predict exactly which mutation when, just the probability; and/or (2) that these mutations are uncorrelated to the environmental needs of the organism?


Well, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call the mutations chance...


I can see that your intuitive sense is in play


Well, chance and randomness is based on statisitical probability. We know that mutations occur and the probability of occuring at a particular area, this is known to be variable across the genome. Some areas tend to undergo mutation at a faster rate than others.

Mutator polymerases can increase mutation rate at particular areas, they may also tend to produce particular types of mutations (from what I gather anyway). And am I correct in that polymerases underlie some cancers and other detrimental processes?

If I roll a die, we have outcome probability, it is bound by certain characteristics, I won't roll a 7. But 1-6 are all possble, the outcome is random. If I need a 4, there is a 1/6 chance of getting it. This is random.

If I have two dice, and roll them both, then we have a more complicated probability, If I need a seven, I am more likely to achieve it than to want a 2, however, the process is still random. That is, non-deterministic.

Thus, It seems these mutator polymerases increase rate, can be targeted to a degree. But the outcome is still non-deterministic?


while I've not read the paper in detail, the nature of the mutations aren't discussed. Perhaps they're chance mutations, perhaps not.


Well, you need to take this up with the peer-reviewers and the authors. Their abstract suggests otherwise.


Wow... I must be doing a poor job of explaining myself. They are certainly a consequence of a genetic change... a mutation. But, IMO, it would appear the nature of the mutations is not random.... more of those 'natural genetic engineering' mechanisms that I keep referring to. My issue is not with mutation per se, but the nature of said mutation.


Well, from what I gather the mutations underlying nylonase were random or, if you prefer, non-deterministic.

NylB, which seems to be the most important of the four known in the two organisms was the result of a deletion mutation and then a frameshift. The Yomo experiment showed that it took 9 days for the colony of pseudomonas to grow, three months to achieve rapid growth, if this was directed, it wasn't very good direction. We had a two step process that first enabled a degree of survival, then an enhancement of survival. Quite Darwinian.

I don't see how any of this is a problem for Darwinian evolution. And these 'natural genetic engineering mechanisms' sounds like an ID buzzword. Shapiro might have an 'intuitive sense' but at this point it is all 'hot air', until we see a theory based on deterministic 'natural genetic engineering mechanisms' make peer-review, it will remain just a subjectively biased intuition, like most are.

Anyway, I shot you a WATS, as it's good to have an informed discussion rather the 'I in't no gawdamn monkey' type debate. So cheers, good to learn and have to think


[edit on 2-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Really? Then how did it get here? It's just there? How does that explain anything?


law of conservation of matter and energy
matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed

it is logical to infer that they always existed from that law



At least I can say it was created.


in violation of a law of physics



And I can say that something was there to create the mathematics, mechanics, energy, time, and material involved in the construction of the universe and it's parts.


but you can't prove whether or not said being exists
so it's just a HYPOTHESIS



Santa? How does this even relate to Santa?


santa explains how presents get under christmas trees in the same way god explains how everything came to be...



Let me sum up what Science likes us to believe. Everything was just there. It blew up or something. We have nice spheres and orbiting planets. We have seasons. Lightening struck or a rock or something fell on earth. Things accidentally mutated into fish and stuff. Monkeys came from lizards or fish or something. Brains developed, and here we humans are. And all this happened without one bit of creative power. Wait a minute I forgot about the evolving trees and stuff. There we go.


nice lazy, simplistic, and ignorant way to explain several dozen complex theories that stretch over the course of billions of years...

that's akin to me explaining creation as:

"some magical pixie-fairy invisible unicorn created everything for no explainable reaosn and hid the fact through science because it is a horrible individual that desires us to burn..."



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
religion disproves itself
if god created us what created god?
and according to christianity god is perfect
if hes so perfect why did lucifer defect?
i mean if your perfect shouldnt you sort forsee theese things coming? i.e.
lucifer defecting
humans losing faith for the 1st time (before the flood)
humans losing faith a second time (now)

and supposedly we cant see god this is the whole problem.
people defect and lose faith because there is no proof of god
what are people more likely to belive: a invisible god or a god who is proven to exist.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
We can't just say "matter just appeared." It isn't logical. It had to come from somewhere. God, the creator, the beginning, does not have to exist in a "physical" manner. It has nothing to do with being lazy. Sometimes the most profound things are derived from a simple observation.

Once we start explaining the "beginning" with a lump of material that some how just appeared, or was simply there, then we have skipped what came before that. Something had to have put it there, or it would have been extremely improbable for it to come into being.

I can't think of any other explanation other than creation. Some folks have said mathematics is the beginning. But mathematics requires a mental understanding. It couldn't have created itself.

I'm sorry if some folks don't share this reality. I don't expect you to force this reality upon yourself if you just don't "see" it.

If you don't see it, then you don't see it.

I had a time where I didn't believe in a god. But as I have grown and studied, creation became more real to me.

Troy



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy

...I can't think of any other explanation other than creation. Some folks have said mathematics is the beginning. But mathematics requires a mental understanding. It couldn't have created itself....


...I had a time where I didn't believe in a god. But as I have grown and studied, creation became more real to me.

Troy


Yeah, but that is an assumption.
Who created the creator?
It couldn't have created itself.
Same difference.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by Toadmund]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
We can't just say "matter just appeared." It isn't logical.


well, duh
law of conservation of matter and energy
neither can be destroyed or created, so they are logically eternal



It had to come from somewhere.


well, we don't actually know that



God, the creator, the beginning, does not have to exist in a "physical" manner. It has nothing to do with being lazy. Sometimes the most profound things are derived from a simple observation.


there isn't anything profound about the statement "god just did it"
in the words of dawkins "what 'just did' god?"



Once we start explaining the "beginning" with a lump of material that some how just appeared, or was simply there, then we have skipped what came before that.


actually, theoretical physicists are having a ball figuring out this stuff without including a deity



Something had to have put it there, or it would have been extremely improbable for it to come into being.


but said being that "had to put it there" would have had to have something put it there
unless you believe that god is the cause of god's self



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ok, i just want to bring something up, it infuriates me that i have to say it again

EVOLUTION
HAS NOTHING
TO DO
WITH
THE BIG BANG
NOR DOES IT HAVE SOMETHING
TO DO
WITH ABIOGENESIS

evolution deals with the origin OF SPECIES
not the origin of LIFE

also, we actually do have proper spectrum-shift evidence to support that some sort of great expansion (such as one that would occur after a big bang) is happeneing in this universe


dude I dont know when your gonna get a clue and realize that it all ties together. you have all these types of eovlution but you only present one type as if its the only one to chose from. its very deceptive and not very scientific.

and like said before, the flagellum puts a kink in the evolution theory as many scientists have agreed that it is impossible for this to evolve on its own.
and uhm... if most evolutionsts still fail to realize that if you cant get life started, you cannot have what we call organic evolution and macro evolution.
the fact is, life cannot spontaneously generate on its own. even with help it still doesnt work. this is what the textbooks say in college and in highschool. they basically say that they dont know how it started but it had to of happened. and this is not very scientific at all.

when all of you evolutionists finally come to realize that the you cant have evolution without a starting point, you will realize that you all are dead wrong when it comes to this theory and have been believing a lie this entire time.

lets go over the whole thing now real quick just so you can see my point.

if organic evolution cant happen, you cant have micro or macro evolution.
if you cant have chemical evolution you cant have organic evolution.
if you can have stellar evolution you cant have chemical evolution.
if you cant have cosmic evolution, (big bang) you cant have any of this stuff.

you cant just skip all of these steps like they are a given. thats definately non-scientific.

oh and as for your comment on your expansion of the universe... the bible says that God stretched out the heavens like a curtain. this is scientific, we have a redshift because God streched out the heavens. what it wrong with that statement? nothing!



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
dude I dont know when your gonna get a clue and realize that it all ties together. you have all these types of eovlution but you only present one type as if its the only one to chose from. its very deceptive and not very scientific.


...there's only one type of "evolution" any other uses of the word are metaphoric.



and like said before, the flagellum puts a kink in the evolution theory as many scientists have agreed that it is impossible for this to evolve on its own.


fallacy: argument from authority

on top of that, the flagellum thing has been debunked. they found a mechanism that uses only a few parts from that in another cell. this cell uses it as an injection mechanism.
this was brought up as evidence in the dover trial

but back to the fallacy. exactly 700 scientists have agreed that evolution is bunk
...over 800 scientists named steve (or a variation of steve) have agreed that evolution is good
it's quite funny.



and uhm... if most evolutionsts still fail to realize that if you cant get life started, you cannot have what we call organic evolution and macro evolution.
the fact is, life cannot spontaneously generate on its own.


...did you even read what you were quoting from me?
the origin of life isn't the topic of evolution, it's what happened to life after it arose.



even with help it still doesnt work. this is what the textbooks say in college and in highschool. they basically say that they dont know how it started but it had to of happened. and this is not very scientific at all.


...actually, they have a fairly complex theoretical construct about all of this that makes specific predictions as to how life arose. it's quite scientific.



when all of you evolutionists finally come to realize that the you cant have evolution without a starting point, you will realize that you all are dead wrong when it comes to this theory and have been believing a lie this entire time.


...evolution doesn't preclude god. god could be the starting point and evolution could proceed from god allowing life to arise.
there are theistic people that believe in evolution...



lets go over the whole thing now real quick just so you can see my point.

if organic evolution cant happen, you cant have micro or macro evolution.


..."organic evolution"?

why can't we have whatever that is and micro and macro evolution?



if you cant have chemical evolution you cant have organic evolution.


..."chemical evolution"?

why can't we have whatever that is and whatever "organic evolution" is?



if you can have stellar evolution you cant have chemical evolution.


...finally a term i understand

...but still, how do those two dispute?



if you cant have cosmic evolution, (big bang) you cant have any of this stuff.


...the "big bang" isn't "cosmic evolution"
and why can't we have said theory?



you cant just skip all of these steps like they are a given. thats definately non-scientific.


that's probably because they're so damn well supported by evidence.



oh and as for your comment on your expansion of the universe... the bible says that God stretched out the heavens like a curtain. this is scientific, we have a redshift because God streched out the heavens. what it wrong with that statement? nothing!


i take it you don't understand the whole "redshift" thing

basically, god would have to continue stretching for there to be a redshift.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   


...there's only one type of "evolution" any other uses of the word are metaphoric.

ignoring facts does not make it so. evolution applies to the entire theory not just the part you want it to apply to. and even if it is metaphoric, that doesnt exclude everything before biogenesis. everything before has yet to be proven and many assumptions are made without supporting evidence.



but back to the fallacy. exactly 700 scientists have agreed that evolution is bunk
...over 800 scientists named steve (or a variation of steve) have agreed that evolution is good
it's quite funny.

oh so just because the majority believes in this theory that makes it true? thats not very scientific, no actually its not at all.



...did you even read what you were quoting from me?
the origin of life isn't the topic of evolution, it's what happened to life after it arose.


dude I dont know if you are ignoring this on purpose or you are really just that ignorant. but if you cant get it started, you cant get the rest of it, and if you cant get the rest of it that probably means that it never occured.



...actually, they have a fairly complex theoretical construct about all of this that makes specific predictions as to how life arose. it's quite scientific.


a prediction is only part of the scientific method. and the tests they have run so far shows us that life cannot evolve/arise on its own. i can predict that cutting the legs off a frog causes it to go deaf... and I even have evidence to prove it... if you want ill explain it just to prove my point... but that doesnt make it scientific.
I did this experiment with a frog...
set it down and said "jump frog jump" frog jumped 60 inches...
cut off one leg, said "jump frog jump" frog jumped 50 inches...
cut off another leg, said "jump frog jump" frog jumped 40 inches...
prediction, according to the data, frog should jump about 30 inches...
cut off the last leg, said "jump frog jump" frog didnt move...
tried that experiment about 4 different times with 4 different frogs and got the same result.
observation - frog jump shorter distances as the legs were cut off.
conclusion - frog with no legs goes deaf.



..."organic evolution"?
why can't we have whatever that is and micro and macro evolution?
..."chemical evolution"?
why can't we have whatever that is and whatever "organic evolution" is?


micro evolution is scientific, its been tested, observed, demonstrated, everything...
macro evolution would be bacteria evolving into everything we see today over millions of years. is not scientific. its like that conclusion I gave you earlier about the frog. you make a prediction and come to the wrong conclusion.
we have only seen micro evolution, it is assumed that macro happens and everything before that. even the origin of life is assumed to happen. science cannot explain how it happened, but all the evolutionists try to exclude that from discussion as if its already been proven when it has not.
and theistic evolution is heresy. plain and simple. it contradicts the bible on many accounts.



...finally a term i understand
...but still, how do those two dispute?

ah, I was hoping you would ask.
in order for stars to evolve they have to overcome the gas laws.
in order for chemicals to evolve you need stars (fusion and fission)
its quite simple, without any of these, you cannot have evolution.
its kinda like algebra, if you dont follow the order of operations, you get the wrong answer everytime.



...the "big bang" isn't "cosmic evolution"
and why can't we have said theory?

well they teach it in school like its a fact. so why not discuss it like they do?
it goes against many scientific laws and makes assumptions that contradicts its arguments against creation.... ie, the speed of light.



that's probably because they're so damn well supported by evidence.


uhm no, its because they do what you do and try to exclude it because there is no valid evidence to protect it. just like you said "its not part of evolution" but it is cuz it must be included in order to get to what you like to refer to as evolution.



i take it you don't understand the whole "redshift" thing
basically, god would have to continue stretching for there to be a redshift.


uhm the doppler effect is not hard to understand at all.
and as far as we know, the universe doesnt end. we dont know if it ends or where it ends even if it did. we dont know if there is anything beyond space... there is a lot we dont know. and God is pretty big (powerful) and also eternal so i dont think it would be a problem for him to continue stretching the heavens.
do you know what is beyond outter space? its kinda scary when you think about it.



law of conservation of matter and energy
neither can be destroyed or created, so they are logically eternal


not according to the big bang theory, according to the big bang theory (as stated in the text books) the universe evolved from nothing.
here is a quote from textbook.
*HBJ General Science page 362*
"in the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. not only matter and energy would disappear but also space and time. however, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billions years ago. this theory of the origin of the universe is called the big bang theory."

is that not what you believe?



Yeah, but that is an assumption.
Who created the creator?
It couldn't have created itself.
Same difference.


ah and you are conluding that God is bound by the laws he created (laws of nature, physics, etc) and bound by what he created (time space and matter). an eternal being doesnt have a beginning or an end.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
ignoring facts does not make it so. evolution applies to the entire theory not just the part you want it to apply to.


...
evolutionary theory
starts
with
the
first
cell.

that's the whole of evolutionary theory.



and even if it is metaphoric, that doesnt exclude everything before biogenesis. everything before has yet to be proven and many assumptions are made without supporting evidence.


abiogenesis isn't even part of evolutionary theory. anything prior to abiogenesis isn't even a part of biology, let alone evolutionary theory.



oh so just because the majority believes in this theory that makes it true? thats not very scientific, no actually its not at all.


...i never said that. in fact, you're taking me out of context. i just was pointing out how your use of the argument from authority (which is a logical fallacy) is kind of misplaced



dude I dont know if you are ignoring this on purpose or you are really just that ignorant. but if you cant get it started, you cant get the rest of it, and if you cant get the rest of it that probably means that it never occured.


by that logic every single scientific theory has to prove the origin of the universe...
but that's not how it goes.
each theory works with a very narrow set of things. evolution deals with how species arose on earth after the first living thing.
genetics deals with the genetic makeup of those living things
cell biology deals with cells
pathology deals with disease




a prediction is only part of the scientific method.


of course it's only a part, but that's how we validate theories.



and the tests they have run so far shows us that life cannot evolve/arise on its own.


please, direct me to evidence that shows me this

...and "evolve/arise on its own" further demonstrates your ignorance here.



i can predict that cutting the legs off a frog causes it to go deaf... and I even have evidence to prove it... if you want ill explain it just to prove my point... but that doesnt make it scientific.
I did this experiment with a frog...
set it down and said "jump frog jump" frog jumped 60 inches...
cut off one leg, said "jump frog jump" frog jumped 50 inches...
cut off another leg, said "jump frog jump" frog jumped 40 inches...
prediction, according to the data, frog should jump about 30 inches...
cut off the last leg, said "jump frog jump" frog didnt move...
tried that experiment about 4 different times with 4 different frogs and got the same result.
observation - frog jump shorter distances as the legs were cut off.
conclusion - frog with no legs goes deaf.


...this has nothing to do with anything. you're setting up the most ridiculous strawman i've ever seen here.



micro evolution is scientific, its been tested, observed, demonstrated, everything...


at least you accept part of the theory.



macro evolution would be bacteria evolving into everything we see today over millions of years.


...no
just no
you're equating all forms of single celled life to bacteria
further betraying your ignorance.



is not scientific. its like that conclusion I gave you earlier about the frog. you make a prediction and come to the wrong conclusion.


...you don't make a prediction at the beginning, you start with a hypothesis. a prediction is made once you have the theory and the evidence to support it.




we have only seen micro evolution, it is assumed that macro happens and everything before that.


we do kind of have the fossil record to back the macro evolution part up...



and theistic evolution is heresy. plain and simple. it contradicts the bible on many accounts.


then the bible is heresy, it contradicts itself on many accounts...

and no, it isn't heresy. nowhere in genesis does it say "take this literally"
in fact, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible to take the whole thing literally...

also, heliocentrism and a round earth would be heresy, as they aren't pointed out in the bible.



ah, I was hoping you would ask.
in order for stars to evolve they have to overcome the gas laws.


...which gas laws?



in order for chemicals to evolve you need stars (fusion and fission)
its quite simple, without any of these, you cannot have evolution.


what does cosmology have to do with biology here?



its kinda like algebra, if you dont follow the order of operations, you get the wrong answer everytime.


again
again
you're confusing
you're confusing
scientific fields
scientific fields




well they teach it in school like its a fact. so why not discuss it like they do?
it goes against many scientific laws and makes assumptions that contradicts its arguments against creation.... ie, the speed of light.


...you make such vague statements. which scientific laws does it violate and which assumptions does it make that contradicts it's arguments against creation and where does the speed of light fit into all of this?



uhm no, its because they do what you do and try to exclude it because there is no valid evidence to protect it.


ok
show me how ID is testable.
then we'll start talking about whether or not it can even have evidence to support it.



just like you said "its not part of evolution" but it is cuz it must be included in order to get to what you like to refer to as evolution.


you could have a dancing purple hippo farting out the earth fully formed with the first microbial life on it and you can still have evolution...



uhm the doppler effect is not hard to understand at all.


good, now the whole point of the "redshift" is that it shows motion.
you said "god stretching" explains this...but it's a continuous stretch..



and as far as we know, the universe doesnt end. we dont know if it ends or where it ends even if it did.


...someone hasn't been following science. we can even estimate the size of the universe we inhabit
it's about 13.7 billion lightyears across.



we dont know if there is anything beyond space... there is a lot we dont know.


we also don't always know what part of he pig the hotdog comes from, but that doesn't mean we're not going to eat it.

...i think that's the deepest metaphor i've ever made involving a hotdog.



and God is pretty big (powerful) and also eternal so i dont think it would be a problem for him to continue stretching the heavens.


the existence god is also pretty unproven and unprovable. hell, the very concept of god is impossible to define as there have been so many versions...

see, you're working with a very deluded assumption when you make this argument.



do you know what is beyond outter space? its kinda scary when you think about it.


not really.




not according to the big bang theory, according to the big bang theory (as stated in the text books) the universe evolved from nothing.


...
what?
first off, this is the most ridiculous use of the argument from authority. the big bang theory only has to do with everything from planck time...



here is a quote from textbook.
*HBJ General Science page 362*
"in the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. not only matter and energy would disappear but also space and time. however, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billions years ago. this theory of the origin of the universe is called the big bang theory."


wow, they really need to revise this science book....
for one thing, it's got the age of the universe off by nearly 3 billion years.
for another, it complete excludes the singularity from which the big bang occured
and lastly, the big bang isn't an "explosion" it was an expansion.



is that not what you believe?


not at all
what i believe is that the book is either dumbing down the subject so that kids can understand it better or that it's fraudulent.




ah and you are conluding that God is bound by the laws he created (laws of nature, physics, etc) and bound by what he created (time space and matter). an eternal being doesnt have a beginning or an end.


and you're concluding that god created the laws of physics or that god exists and that god is eternal without any evidence to back it up.

hell, you're assuming that the laws of physics applied prior to the big bang. the singularity that existed prior to the big bang might have had an entirely different set of laws.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
O&C conspiracy has, as of late, become relatively inactive
why?
because every argument for creationism and intelligent design has been soundly refuted

so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science


It's rare to find comedians on such topical forum boards!!

Ok you are assuming that creationism is measured scientifically, you need to let go of the fact that science doesnt hold the answer to every question!

Evolution is a theory, it is NOT a science, there is no evidence to support evolution at all especially scientifically that is you taking a leap of faith not the creationists.

We have no fossil record of transistional stages - now being a deluded evolutionist you will say that well, what it is, right , what happened was erm was that fossilization has such a "luck" involved that not everything that died fossilized and it is merely missing. Hmmmm and thats scientific. If i turned round to you and said that when i was a child i could fire laser beams from my arse but unfortuantely i never took a picture to prove it does that make it true? Yeah.... exactly

The spontaneous generation of life is the most outrageous and far fetched assumption in existence and heres why...

Not only to create life do need 2 strings of DNA that are perfectly matched but on top of that you need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life! Therefore you have a paradox problem... You cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if you want to be generous) but one has to have the cell aswell. To add to this problem as well for the first life to be the creator of all life on earth it pretty much needs to be the same as all life on earth otherwise it could not have been the source of all life now on earth as we now know.

I would like to refer you to the "millers" experiment (1953). What miller did was set up an experiment to prove the origins of life. he tried to create the 20 ESSENTIAL amino acids needed to create life, he actually managed to create about 10 which isnt bad but some of those where right handed amino acids which are actually toxic/lethal to life. Millers experiment which was trying to prove Abiogenesis was possible but what he actually did was the complete opposite! There have been a number of other experiments carried out by various other scientists over the years and with each one although some had improved results showed that abiogenesis is more and more complex and more and more impossible. The only experiments to which scientists came close to producing life (which were still along way off) was by removing oxygen from the experiment because oxygen has a way of destroying the bond between left handed amino acids. (I refer you back to my first paragraph). Additionally to this ALL experiments produced a significant number of right handed amino acids which are deadly to left handed amino acids, even on a ratio of 1:1 the right handed amino acid would decay the left therefore destroying life and not creating it proving abiogenesis (what evolutionists believe to be the start of all life) infinately impossible!

To even further add to this you have got to ask yourself this question, if scientists somehow did create life in a lab using abiogenesis would that not show that it takes intelligent life to create life and therefore support the creationist theory?

The complexity of living systems/Life is as we know it is a sum of components working perfectly together in a precise way to perform the basic functions of that part. such a system would have to come fully formed and intergrated, if any part was missing it would cease to function/die, gradual editions cannot account for the origin of such a system.

For example: when you look at a watch you assume there was a watch maker, a watch is to complex to happen by chance yet such living systems are

CONT....



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Bys0n
 


are infinately more complex suggesting that they cannot be random and has to be designed, you have never seen a watch sprout legs or arms have you? This again supports a creationist theory.

Using the above example i would also like you to note an actual scientific law of physics (please remember that evolution is not scientifically proven)

Entropy: the second law of Thermodynamics - Basically in a nutshell entropy/thermodynamics is a scientific law of physics which states that ORDER cannot be formed from DISORDER with in a closed system. To simplify any system whether it be living or none living over time will have a tendancy towards disorder (breakdown, fall apart, corrupt etc). Evolutionists suggest that over time things become more complex, advance, build up therefore directly opposing Entropy (which again can i remind you is a scientific law of physics)

Evolutionists admit that the chance of evolution is very low or at least unobserved but given time is possible. given Billions of years/time the possible is inherantly more likely but the impossible still will never be possible, life will/can never be formed from non life.

The above principles rules out any possiblity of Cosmic Evolution, Chemical evolution and Stellar and planetary evolution on the basis that the complexity needed cannot be formed from nothing.

this only leaves us with Organic evolution (Macro/Micro).

Macro-Evolution, the idea that one animal can change into another kind of animal, this has never been witnessed nor proven. to define a kind of animal I will give an example by placing them into another definition, familys: Wolfs, Foxes, hounds and coyotes are all part of the dog family. we have never seen a dog come from anything other than a dog, we have never seen a dog give birth to anything other than a dog and that goes for every family of animals, cats, birds etc. Macro-evolution is not a science, it cannot be observed, it cannot be tested and it cannot be repeated therefore it is a theory, one of which has no supporting evidence (For it to be supported as evolution we would require thousands of missing links of the transitional stages which well are missing hmmmmmmmm)

Darwin himself acknowledged that if his theory was true it would require millions of transitional forms!

Micro-evolution (variants within kinds/familys)

The only witnessed/proven evolution is not an evolution as evolutionist would like you to believe. A dog can give birth to a smaller dog, a dog of different colour and/or if it is interbred even different shape but that doesnt make it evolved, it is still the some of its parts (half mum half dad), it has not gained anything extra nor has it devoloped in complexity. Micro evolution is NOT Evolution and just because varitions are possible doesnt make evolution possible as by definition alone it is still a dog!

(Information gained from various sources)



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
abiogenesis isn't even part of evolutionary theory. anything prior to abiogenesis isn't even a part of biology, let alone evolutionary theory.

funny how some who claim to be able to debunk ToE seem completely incapable of grasping this basic fact about it.. :shk:



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bys0n
Ok you are assuming that creationism is measured scientifically, you need to let go of the fact that science doesnt hold the answer to every question!


you're right. it only hold the answer to who, what, where, when, how, and sometimes why

i say "sometimes" because it can only answer why when it is in terms of causality



Evolution is a theory, it is NOT a science, there is no evidence to support evolution at all especially scientifically that is you taking a leap of faith not the creationists.


...theories are science
there is evidence to support evolution
in fact, there is a mountain of it.



We have no fossil record of transistional stages - now being a deluded evolutionist you will say that well, what it is, right , what happened was erm was that fossilization has such a "luck" involved that not everything that died fossilized and it is merely missing. Hmmmm and thats scientific.


...we do have fossil records of "transitional" stages

hell, you don't even need to go part wiki to get that little bit of info

en.wikipedia.org...





The spontaneous generation of life is the most outrageous and far fetched assumption in existence and heres why...


...again
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

have i made myself clear?



Not only to create life do need 2 strings of DNA that are perfectly matched but on top of that you need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life! Therefore you have a paradox problem... You cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if you want to be generous) but one has to have the cell aswell. To add to this problem as well for the first life to be the creator of all life on earth it pretty much needs to be the same as all life on earth otherwise it could not have been the source of all life now on earth as we now know.


can someone else tackle this in another thread?
this thread is about evolution


*snip more abiogenesis info


the topic is evolution, please stay on topic
you're going into a realm of chemistry that overlaps with biology.



To even further add to this you have got to ask yourself this question, if scientists somehow did create life in a lab using abiogenesis would that not show that it takes intelligent life to create life and therefore support the creationist theory?


i actually have already addressed this. all it would show is that life arises in X conditions.

this thread is now becoming me repeating myself.



The complexity of living systems/Life is as we know it is a sum of components working perfectly together in a precise way to perform the basic functions of that part. such a system would have to come fully formed and intergrated, if any part was missing it would cease to function/die, gradual editions cannot account for the origin of such a system.


except it wouldn't
i'll use ID's favorite posterchild, the flagellum motor. they have found a mechanism that works using only a few parts of this "irreducibly complex design" in another cell.



For example: when you look at a watch you assume there was a watch maker, a watch is to complex to happen by chance yet such living systems are


...there's a considerable difference. the problem isn't the complexity there, it's the components. the parts of a watch cannot arise naturally, the parts that make up the "complexity" of life can all arise naturally.



new topics




 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join