[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
evolution of whales into horses[/quote]
Sweet Jesus, the stupid hurts[/quote]
Whoops. I thought I had that around the wrong way. The example is wrong but the idea it represents is correct.[/quote]
No, it’s not.
[quote]JMac10 wrote:
[quote]
I’m afraid semantics aren’t going to get you out of this one. Newton is considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.
As for not crediting God, Kepler famously said that his scientific thoughts were �¢??thinking God�¢??s thoughts after Him.�¢?? And Newton actually wrote more on theology than he did on science.
I’m afraid that you are well behind on your history of science studies.[/quote]
You have to realize these were sponsored by the church. Being an atheist meant death… But let’s say they were believers, which a lot of the early scientists were…there wasn’t enough information to make them non believers.[/quote]
Rubbish. At best you have an argument from silence.
And evolutionary ideas were not invented by Darwin. Some of the ancient philosophers before Christ â?? such as Anaximander (d. 546), Empedocles (d. 435), Democritus (d. 370), Epicurus (d. 270) and Lucretius (d. 55) â?? had evolutionary ideas that life arose spontaneously and that different life forms arose from one another.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Part 8
Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.
[/quote]
This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]
What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]
I agree that the scientific method is valid, subject to its limitations. As wikipedia notes "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What this means is science can’t be used to determine if whales evolved into horses because that was never observed nor can it be repeated or tested.
Another implication is that science can’t be used to rule out the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, it is outside of the realm of science to test it. Make sense?
[/quote]
Cannot be observed in present time. But it doesn’t have to be observed in its current form in present time to be observed. Science can be used to observe historical natural phenomena. [/quote]
Nonsense. The fossil record needs to be interpreted. Science can’t tell you if that whale fossil you’re looking at had kids that were slightly less whale and slightly more horse.
It also can’t be repeated or tested, so fails on those counts.[/quote]
It is repeatable. You find more of the same fossils and find links too. These then back up the predictions made by the theory. Can it be known to 100 percent certainty? Absolutely not, but as long as you’re using empirical methods (i.e. science) nothing can. Theory of evolution uses methodological naturalism to form the the hypotheses and theory and creationism and its offshoots use the supernatural. And the fossil record isn’t the only evidence. You can go into other fields and the evidence supports it there. Which lend evolutionary theory even more credence because it gives it more fecundity. [/quote]
You’re really not getting this, are you? How is the evolution of whales into horses repeatable? The only thing that you are repeating is your “evolution tinted” interpretation.
I also think that you misunderstand the creation model. The only supernatural events that are assumed are the ones that have been revealed in scripture, i.e. original creation and the miracles. Natural laws are assumed for all else.[/quote]
I know. And those are supernatural phenomena and not natural causes. In fact, the entire theory is built on supernatural phenomena first. From supernatural phenomena, it uses or tries to use scientific principles. It may or may not be valid, but as science it certainly isn’t sound.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Hi, I was just driving by and read this thread with interest. This is the newest publicized research in the field of evolutionary genetics. In case you are interested and haven’t seen it yet.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/denisova[/quote]
This is fascinating. Of course not in the way you think. This is actually a falsification of the predictions made by evolutionary theory. Not that you’ll see them focus on that.
Read this. Denisovan Genome Reveals Interbreeding With Modern Humans – CEH
If you are really open-minded you might find some very interesting reading on that site.[/quote]
I try not to be that “open”, I try to keep criterias.
Sorry, as Matty has pointed out for you there is no such thing as creation-science, it provides no scientific answers, only re-interpretetations of existing scientific knowledge. I read it though and skimmed the site, thank you for the link.
I’m out for the night and through work tomorrow.
[quote]JMac10 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.
This is called equivocation. You use the term evolution to mean change over time and show an example. You then claim that that proves evolution of one animal into another. It’s fallacious.
[/quote]
Lol This is not equivocation… This is evolution on a small scale…which I said. Do you broadly even know how evolution works? Animals don’t turn into other animals like a horse into a whale.this isn’t animorphs…
[/quote]
Okay, it’s bait and switch then!!(-;
And I agree with you, animals don’t turn into other animals. That’s why evolution is falsified.
However, if the evolution of all living things started out with a lowest common ancestor, then at some point one animal had to turn into another didn’t it?
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thank you =] How bout the question of whether they do it at all? Where do I find a demonstration of the random ascending complexity of bio information required for even bacteria to exist to say nothing of the human brain? Could you link me to that please?[/quote]
You are supposed to find it as fossils in different strata. That is, if you accept that your everyday notion of cause and effect spans across aeons. I could add God as a cause, but I would have to know what I mean by it. What god? You are convinced about the Abrahamic God, and the evidence is in the Bible, take it, as you do, or leave it. Personal revelations help, without a doubt.[/quote]
Using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is the classic example of circular reasoning known as begging the question. You assume that evolution is true, then interpret the fossils thru that lens and then claim that it proves that evolution is true!!
Of course if that reasoning is allowed then you must also accept the following. You assume that YEC is true, then interpret the fossils thru that lens and then claim that it proves that YEC is true!![/quote]
That’s because of the nature of language, everybody does that, it’s unavoidable and necessary, regardless of your basic assumptions. Of course I “accept” the claim, you just made it, but it doesn’t make it plausible. To believe YEC (I hate acronyms) I would have to give highest priority to Bible, it’s not readily readable in the Book of Nature.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I could do it the way you do, which is postulating an unproven premise that contains the answers I seek.
[/quote]
The irony is rich.[/quote]
In its noexistence, yes.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]JMac10 wrote:
I can use google search too and try to sound smart. Again there was not enough information to make them nonbelievers… Even darwin was having trouble coming to terms with it… Yes Democritus - regarded as an atheist, yes Epicurus regarded as an -atheist. I don’t know about the others… They are also Greek and didn’t live in the time of when the church was in power
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Evolution of novel genes.
Long M.
Source
Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago Illinois 60637, USA. mlong@midway.uchicago.edu
Abstract
Much progress in understanding the evolution of new genes has been accomplished in the past few years. Molecular mechanisms such as illegitimate recombination and LINE element mediated 3’ transduction underlying exon shuffling, a major process for generating new genes, are better understood. The identification of young genes in invertebrates and vertebrates has revealed a significant role of adaptive evolution acting on initially rudimentary gene structures created as if by evolutionary tinkers. New genes in humans and our primate relatives add a new component to the understanding of genetic divergence between humans and non-humans.[/quote]Could I get your commentary on this please?
[/quote]
To what.
He writes a whole paper on how and why DNA strands at least get longer and you insist that fairies tinkered with it?
Your basic premise was wrong thats all.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.
[/quote]
No, its not.
If a lizard evolved into anything other than a lizard, that would be a major problem.
In the same way, and this will blow your mind, a chicken is still a dinosaur, and on top of it it is also a bird and on top of that its a chicken.
You dont get to leave the categories you are already in, you at best add a new one on top of the ones already existing.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]JMac10 wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.
This is called equivocation. You use the term evolution to mean change over time and show an example. You then claim that that proves evolution of one animal into another. It’s fallacious.
[/quote]
Lol This is not equivocation… This is evolution on a small scale…which I said. Do you broadly even know how evolution works? Animals don’t turn into other animals like a horse into a whale.this isn’t animorphs…
[/quote]
Okay, it’s bait and switch then!!(-;
And I agree with you, animals don’t turn into other animals. That’s why evolution is falsified.
However, if the evolution of all living things started out with a lowest common ancestor, then at some point one animal had to turn into another didn’t it?
[/quote]
It was never bait and switch… Again that is evolution on a small scale… Go find those lizards in a couple million of years and they will look completely different… Possibly you wouldn’t even be able to call them lizards… But it was small changes over millions of years to make them look different.
Yes we come from single cells (which you don’t probably believe) but no animals don’t just turn into other animals. It’s small changes like the lizards adapting to new environments over a vast amount of time.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.
[/quote]
No, its not.
If a lizard evolved into anything other than a lizard, that would be a major problem.
In the same way, and this will blow your mind, a chicken is still a dinosaur, and on top of it it is also a bird and on top of that its a chicken.
You dont get to leave the categories you are already in, you at best add a new one on top of the ones already existing. [/quote]
This is a great point Orion… A perfect example of this adding on top of whats originally there is the human mind or even the eye… The mind still has impulse even though it’s unnecessary and the eye Has the more important Parts towards the front
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.
[/quote]
No, its not.
If a lizard evolved into anything other than a lizard, that would be a major problem.
In the same way, and this will blow your mind, a chicken is still a dinosaur, and on top of it it is also a bird and on top of that its a chicken.
You dont get to leave the categories you are already in, you at best add a new one on top of the ones already existing. [/quote]
Hahahahaha, a chicken is a dinosaur and a bird!! Right. Got any proof?