Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

[Savaric]

Snrrub is quite the poster.

[Gaviani]

The various fallacies Malacasta (accurately) describes can also be read about in the other Logical Fallacies and You thread, conveniently started by Tharzon.

[anthson]

Originally posted by Vaer
There is no point in pointing you towards the plethora of evidence that sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. You would not be able to make the logical connections necessary to arrive at an intelligent conclusion, and so you would dismiss the evidence out of hand. You also conveniently left out mentioning the crocodile, of which there is complete fossil evidence.

Once again, I ask you, how do you know anything about sharks from "millions of years ago" other than their jaw structure. You continually, repeatedly state you have some phantom point to make that I am too unintelligent to understand. All you're doing is harassing for the sake of being a prick. Trust me, I know from experience, It's much better to be a prick with substance than with petty little jabs.

Originally posted by Vaer
Turn a microbe into a tomato? Given enough time, the proper building blocks, and a proper procedure, it would be possible. That's something we're on our way to working out, but it may not happen for another 100-200 years.

And when it does, it'll prove it takes a team of intelligent folks to make a tomato from a microbe. I'm not sure how that one got past you.

Originally posted by Vaer
Also, is it really that hard for you to realize that, in any species between the giraffe and its ancestors, the "complex" blood pressure system would have adapted simultaneously? It would have started out relatively simple and then became more complex as the neck became longer.

You're playing make-believe, here. You really don't know anything you're saying, you're just imagining how it happened. That's FINE, just don't call it the absolute unending truth and science. What are your reasons for the blood pressure system having evolved along with the neck? What process of natural selection causes that to happen, exactly?

And another thing, as I'm sure you learned in biology class, natural selection is a loss of genetic information. Not a gain. You lose genes when the short-necked critters die because they can't reach the leaves. You see this in dogs all the time. Through selective breeding, we've managed to get a chihuahua. In this example we're substituting a natural condition that selects for a human-preferred condition that selects. Either way, traits are being excluded from a gene pool and it works the same way. Eventually you end up with a shit-nosed rat dog. But you KNOW this is a loss of genetic information. You can never breed that dog back to Great Dane size without adding new genetic info. So tell me how this process, which has obvious limits we can test and observe, creates new genetic information? You can't, because it doesn't. You have to resort to mutations, and that's a different subject altogether.

Originally posted by Vaer
Umm, yes. Because evolution happens in the cell/s of microbes, it happens over time in the cells that make up your body as well.

Again, how do you know this? Did you see it happen? How can you be sure the evolution you're observing doesn't have a limit to how far it can go?

Originally posted by Vaer
Your entire idea on creation stems from the bible. It is entirely appropriate to bring it up.

Bring it up somewhere else. I never brought it up, so what's your deal?

Originally posted by Vaer
I'm also not saying that it's hard to come up with a framework for existence without God. I'm simply saying that it's hard. Period. That is what we are working to find out.

I thought you said it was easy when you add God and that's why creationists are lazy? If I misunderstood, please explain the real reason why creationists are lazy.

Originally posted by Vaer
Dude, you are the one who knows nothing. Try taking a genetics class some time. Something advanced. Anything that would give you an ounce of credibility.

Again, if you want to attack the person, see ad hominem. You've already made your case for how few college classes I've taken. Why must you persist with this line of attack?

Originally posted by Vaer
What do I know about you? It doesn't matter. If any of it was true, you probably wouldn't realize it anyway.

Dude, you SERIOUSLY need to cut your shit. I've kept my temper and not resorted to creating new curse words or employing old ones in different contexts (see my previous achievement when I successfully turned "buttfuck" into a noun). You're not a mind reader and you know nothing about me or my life. Making broad, sweeping conclusions in an attempt to discredit and insult me personally is only going to piss me off. If that's all you came here to do, then maybe you should read up on trolling. Either way, discuss the substance or just leave.

Originally posted by Vaer
As I've said before, there is no faith in science. At the present, there is also no science in faith. Looking back on all of these threads on religion/faith/science/etc. lately, it just seems to be one of the topics everyone will just have to agree to disagree on.

I don't have to agree to do anything. I'm making valid points and I expect you to either concede or keep addressing them from a scientific standpoint. You seem to more often be opting for the in-between where you just stay here, stereotype my history, and insult my intelligence.

[anthson]

Originally posted by Malacasta
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.

What IS disputable is how far it can go, Malacasta. That's perfectly logical and scientific to dispute seeing as no one has ever observed it going beyond a certain point. Even some staunch, millions-of-years evolutionists will agree there is a line. I have read several of them claim the common house fly has evolved as far as it can go. I'm sure others might disagree, but a lot of scientific minds agree there is a line somewhere. I'm disputing the line. I'm challenging your logic that because we've seen evolution go five miles, that it's capable of going five billion more. Just because you see a guy driving south on I 35 for five miles doesn't automatically prove the dude's a Canadian heading for Mexico. Does my illustration help you see where I stand? By and large, I don't dispute your scientific findings. It's the conclusions I take issue with.

Originally posted by Malacasta
The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Can you explain one helpful mutation you've observed? I don't know of any, but I admit I don't travel around the world studying mutants. I'd like to know what you know, though. So far, all the mutations I've seen involve a harmful scrambling of genetic information -- not any helpful additions of new info. Still, if you're willing to point something out, I am more than willing to read up on it.

I'd also like to know what you think about my response to Vaer on natural selection and the loss of genetic information over time.

Originally posted by Malacasta
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either.

From now on, when someone asks me for proof of my faith, should I quote you on this one? Seems easier than going through all this typing I've endured. However, I don't wager anyone will take me seriously, least of which yourself.

Originally posted by Malacasta
In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.

And that's exactly what I'm disputing. I, personally, think scientists have way overjumped the gun in coming to a conclusion. I have illustrated in detail some of the reasons why. What I detest is when people act like the evolutionary origin of life is as well documented and solidified as gravity (and, in Vaer's case, if only I had more scientific diplomas, I could see that).

Originally posted by Malacasta
If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

I know what most common folks know, and probably a little bit more. I'm addressing that. If I'm leaving any evidence out, present it. We'll talk about it. I'd be happy to go over anything you want to bring up. I'm all ears (or ... eyes. whatever).

[Darion]

I ignore most chatter about religion because I myself am impartial to the fact, provided that no one decides to give me an earful of anything against my own desire to receive said earful. That said, I skim this thread now and again and have duly noted what a cesspool it has become. Generalizations over.

Originally posted by Vaer
Your entire idea on creation stems from the bible. It is entirely appropriate to bring it up.

Originally posted by anthson
Bring it up somewhere else. I never brought it up, so what's your deal?

I take serious issue with the above because you have, in fact, brought it up. Anthson, since it's so trendy on the forums these past days, here is a wet slap of Intro Logic 101 for you: context of discovery and context of justification. Logic typically does not deal with context of discovery and is concerned only with context of justification. Here is an example:

A scientist has a dream. In this dream, he deduces some formula. He wakes up, says, "Wow, that was a great idea!" and proceeds to back up the formula with the scientific method. Logic does not care that he originally dreamt the formula.

You are drawing your belief structure from the Bible and/or other assorted religious texts. Your context of justification is along the lines of:

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

As well as such things as:

Turn a microbe into a tomato for me.

In other words: not science. You have made mention of your lack of experience in the particular field you are debating (which is not wrong in and of itself), however you have also brought in your context of discovery (scripture), which is not relevant to a logical argument, as context of justification (science). It does not work. You are not making valid points as you say you are. Vaer is correct to call your reliance on non-science into question, though perhaps he's being a little snippety about it.

You really need to start calming down before you come here and drop bombs on people. I'm asking nicely despite the fact that the way you treat people most of the time makes me highly aggravated. I would like you to take that into consideration and reciprocate.

EDIT: I also deleted two posts that were straight flames/off topic arguments waiting to happen. I really shouldn't have to do this. If you don't think you can stay even remotely civil, then don't post here until you're certain you can.

EDIT EDIT: That last sentence was not directed at any one person in particular.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: And this goes for EVERYBODY. Jeez, read the forum guidelines.

[anthson]

Originally posted by Darion
You are drawing your belief structure from the Bible and/or other assorted religious texts.

No, I'm not. I draw my belief structure from what I know about science. I was a creationist well before I was a Christian. It took me some time, once I figured out the world was created, to figure out who the creator was. Still, everyone wants to think I just bone the Bible. If science doesn't match the Bible, it can't be reasoned as the word of God. That's my view.

In the interest of keeping things on-topic, I'm going to continue the rest of this post in private message. The above, however, seemed it needed stating. Hopefully now some of you will not feel a need to stereotype me over why I believe what I do.

[asgoth]

Originally posted by anthson
(snip..)

Can you explain one helpful mutation you've observed? I don't know of any, but I admit I don't travel around the world studying mutants. I'd like to know what you know, though. So far, all the mutations I've seen involve a harmful scrambling of genetic information -- not any helpful additions of new info. Still, if you're willing to point something out, I am more than willing to read up on it.

I'd also like to know what you think about my response to Vaer on natural selection and the loss of genetic information over time.
(snip..)

While it can be argued if it is "helpful" or not, there is proof of a helpful evolution. Simply take the growing strings of bacteria which have developed immunities to specific antibiotica. This is a clear example where the evolution theory may be proven. Similar immunities are evolving in insects, which grow to become resistant to specific chemicals used to keep them from humanities precious crops.

On the other hand, have you seen any single proof of a changed "design" to appear ? There is plenty of proof that different "designs" did exist in the past, while the current "designs" as far as animals / plants are concerned ?

I am mentioning this to show that
a) not everything in evolution is done through mutation.
b) there are proven examples on how species evolve to adapt to changes in their habitats.
and c) that the cycles in which evolution operates are past the scope of any human to observe.

This does not, however, eliminate the examples which do show the mechanisms on a smaller scale.

For creationism, no such example exists, and i have severe doubts as to if we will ever be able to find any proof of this, as we would need to find a design which
a) has no known history.
b) could not possibly have evolved from an existing design.

To answer the question about loss of genetic data, the answer is surprisingly simple.

First of all, the statement is correct. Evolution (when running without mutation) will eventually loose genetic information. The amount of genetic information list is, however, significantly lower than in any human driven program. This is due to the gene pool involved in the evolution, as well as the consierably longer times until the changes will evolve.

Human breeding programs usually try to show a change / success within 10 to 50 years, while evolution can easily take centuries for a change.

This aside, mutations do come into play as they will add information to the gene pool, even if the actual mutation itself has no direct effect on a species.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by anthson
No, I'm not. I draw my belief structure from what I know about science.

I can see why there's a problem.

Anthson, it's obvious that you know essentially nothing about genetics, and you don't care to know. When a scientifically knowledgeable person, such as Vaer or myself or Malacasta, try to explain the scientific principles to you, you either reject them out of hand or say "prove it". Do you know how many pages this thread would be if we had to write down the proof to every scientific principle regarding genetics and natural selection? That is centuries of research. Probably thousands of research papers have been published that prove these principles; if you wanted to investigate the science, you could go read some of them. But I don't think you will because you don't care to know about those principles. You're asking us to prove it here on this forum, because you know that is an impossible task.

Most people in the world, and Anthson, I think you're one of these people, have very little scientific understanding of the universe and are happy with it. Scientists and engineers provide you with countless wonderful devices that, as far as you are concerned, work completely by magic. These include cell phones, microwave ovens, MRI machines, the drugs that cure diseases, and so on. These things improve quality of life for society, and society anticipates the next great magical technology that will make things easier for them. But as soon as scientific conclusions are reached that don't fit into your cozy lifestyle, by for example, challenging your belief system, those scientists must all be wrong, right? The same scientists that have researched everything else that you don't understand must be wrong in that paricular case because you want them to be wrong. Then people call those scientists capitalists, or communists, or fascists, or athiests, and say that they must have some hidden and evil agenda. Society declared those things when the scientific research was offered that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. Society declared those things when scientists offered research that suggests smoking is bad for one's health. Society (some part of it, anyways) now declares those things when scientists offer evidence supporting evolution or global warming. So please, go on fighting the facts that don't fit into your lifestyle and go on fighting the facts that conflict with your view of the way things ought to be. But don't claim for even one second that your position has anything to do with science.

Edit: This really wasn't designed to be a flame post. But the validity of the science related to this issue has been challenged, so it's important to say why I don't think the validity of the science actually has anything to do with this topic.

[xaxer]

Theory

what if Gods day is a billion or even 5 billion of our years?
he "thought" into exsistence the Universe( big bang?)

and even evolution has a missing link does it not?
what about God being that missing link?

I feel the science and mathamatics of the universe
and the belief that a supreme being of some kind
is behind it,can work together.

But the passed on tales of the Bible, til it was finally written down
is humanly flawed but not intentionally.

and the Human mind's Scientific attempt to understand
the creation of the universe is beyond us right now
as much as time or intersteller space travel
we don't (yet) have the ablitiy to do it

Simplistic yes
but helps me to see how both can work in tangent with each other.

For I certainly am not a Theologist nor Scientist by any means.

[asgoth]

Originally posted by xaxer
Theory

what if Gods day is a billion or even 5 billion of our years?
he "thought" into exsistence the Universe( big bang?)

and even evolution has a missing link does it not?
what about God being that missing link?

(snip..)

An interesting idea. And quite possible too. I would be the last to deny that it can be that way.

But as a matter of fact, there is no indication that it is the case. And as long as there is no such indication - something which shows that this is indeed what happened, i see no reason to assume it is.

A.