The Age-old Argument

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Sounds like we are near to agreement here.

Yeah, and so are the Isrealis and Palestinians. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Speciation is not an event. It is a retrospective observation of the effect of an accumulation of small (tiny, if you like) changes.

Changes that have never made significant alteration to the base animal. The chihuahua, for all it's differences, can still mate with both the parent stock(the wolf), and the St. Bernard. No speciation has occurred. Every type of finch breed ever to spawn from the original can likwise breed with all of the other finches. No speciation has occurred. Africans can breed with Europeans. No speciation has occurred.

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
FL2, on 25/04 you extolled the civility of this thread. So why are you still being abusive to people?

They started it, and I'm not enough of a Christian to turn the other cheek. Call me a follower more of Paul than Jesus.

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
And why are most of your points laced with sarcasm?

Because it feels so right to lay the smack down on the willfully ignorant.

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
And why did you fall for my little trap a while back?

What trap? And 5 months is longer than a while. I still have a ton of stuff left to fire, what have you got?

 

[floppa21]

Wow fearless leader... After reading this entire thread, boy, what can I say? I'm not surprised. TYPICAL CHRISTIAN? Or I should say STEREOTYPICAL CHRISTIAN... Well, Jesus is patient, you should take a tip.

You talk so much about evidence, shreds of evidence, but you have no evidence either. It is all opinion, useless at that, based on a book? Hmm...

And more a follower of Paul than Christ? Well that explains it!!! I guess I don't need to say more about Paul eh? You definitely aren't much on followin Christ. Like I said, this entire thread showed that. You shouldn't claim to be a Christian, you make the average non-brainwashee think even worse about it than they already do...

You will accept "God's opinion anyday"... Great... What about Tigger and Eeyore's opinion? Or Paul's?

 

[allan]

"Changes that have never made significant alteration to the base animal. The chihuahua, for all it's differences, can still mate with both the parent stock(the wolf), and the St. Bernard."

I'm no expert zoologist, nor do I have this burning passion to know or even try to speculate how we've come into being (WE'RE HERE, so what do we DO with that fact, is what is important from a moral standpoint IMHO)--but I've noticed that some animals of what are widely considered different species can indeed also mate with each other, however the offspring is usually sterile (horse+burro=mule; lion+tiger="liger"--much more rare but HAS happened). Could this possibly represent a not-quite-complete separation of branches from a common ancestor, separate species yet not completely separate--indicating that the line between species can be a little fuzzy and not "Bible black"? Not saying yes or no (who am I to claim to know exactly what happened millions of years before anyone sentient started writing history? Let alone before my own eyes could see it?)--but it COULD.

My take on evolution is that it assumes changes so gradual that we wouldn't know where to draw the line, and indeed some "fuzzy" lines like what I mentioned could exist, between species.

And if one believes in God (and I do personally, although I believe ALL religions "know" Him in one form or other, as either monofaceted or multifaceted (polytheistic), and He could be both depending on how you look at Him--another thread, but needless to say I'm more like a Buddhist or Baha'i than a Christian in the exclusive sense)--anyway, if one believes in God, I honestly do not see how evolution contradicts this. God could have "nudged" it along here and there by creating key mutations that would form new branches. Indeed it says in Genesis that he took away the serpent's legs after the serpent tempted Eve--Genesis is very likely a highly symbolic, allegorical story more than anything, but could the notion of this kind of event have been put into Moses' head by God as a hint that He works in these kinds of (evolutionary) ways? It's possible....

I think that people arguing this whole issue miss the point--at least the Creationists who want to tie things together in a meaningful way spiritually (evolutionists are mainly just scientists, not particularly spiritually motivated). The point being that IT IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE HERE NOW THAT MATTERS, AND WHAT WILL WE EACH DO TO MAKE OURSELVES BETTER PEOPLE, SO THAT WE DO NOT COLLECTIVELY DESTROY OURSELVES (our species).... The teachings of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, and other spiritual "emissaries" if you will, all give us some good advice to avoid such a violent end--but a good human heart will also find these things self-evident--religion at its base (not corrupted by some men's political ambitions) simply helps those who may have trouble remembering these things. But THESE are the things that count, not His particular method of creation (if He wanted us to know these things, He would have given us proof as clear and self-evident as the values of certain morals (peace, honesty, justice, forgiveness) are to most of us everywhere. WHAT WE DO is what counts, and will either make us into a species that can settle among the stars, or break us with nuclear or biological annihilation before we ever get off the planet....

That's my take on things. Sorry for the long theological discourse, but I think it illustrates nicely that from a spiritual perspective anyway, the creation versus evolution versus "creation BY evolution" can of worms is TOTALLY irrelevant, at least the way I see things (and I can think of no other motive but spiritual for obsessing about it). At this time, we should DEFINITELY be looking toward our collective future, NOT some nebulous past we can never know the exact details of anyway. Especially now that we are in a very dangerous war that could go in any direction if cool heads do not prevail.... If there is a God (and I believe there is), He is certainly testing us now, so we should not cloud our heads with these irrelevancies, but concentrate on DOING--and doing RIGHT. Agreed?

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

FL2: The chihuahua, for all it's differences, can still mate with both the parent stock(the wolf), and the St. Bernard. No speciation has occurred. Every type of finch breed ever to spawn from the original can likwise breed with all of the other finches. No speciation has occurred. Africans can breed with Europeans. No speciation has occurred.

Well if you choose examples from within a species then of course there is no speciation by definition. What is your point?

Well I'm not taking sides as to who started what (I haven't the time for all the re-reading I would need to investigate it, although I remember having several strong debates with Mongol Horde without either of us getting unpleasant about it), but I don't understand your "turn the other cheek" reference. To me it is inverted. I don't think you are hurting anyone by what you say, but you certainly show yourself in a poor light, especially after your earlier statement. Personally, I get often embarrassed when I look back at things I've said and done in the heat of the moment.

I'll dig you out of the trap when I've got time to find the relevant texts.

 

[Tekki]

Graeme:

You should have read the rest of this article...you're arguement has already been thrown out. The bacteria? I am currently getting shots for some allergies...they gradually reduce my susceptibility to the substances. It is not a dna change, nor will I pass it to my offspring. If I duplicated as a bacteria does, it would also appear in my duplicate, but notice, it can always return. No mutation has ever been recorded as permanent. About the peppered moths? It was never believed by most scientists of the day to be evolution, and even is commonly rejected today. The populations changed. All dark moths stayed dark. All light moths stayed light. Survival of the fittest? yes. Evolutionary change? nope. Hey again pondlife! I personally would rather debate with you than anyone else...we don't bring up disproven theories or spout off half as often as others do. And don't get too down on FL2...he debated longer than me! lol...I'd get uptight too. Plus we all got a little too fired up at points...like my flaming of what's-his-name earlier for calling me all those names and attributing a whole load of massacres to my name. hope to debate some more soon!

 

[Graeme the mad]

Do u quite understand the argument about the bacteria because your 'disproval' of it makes no sense.

If you want real proof of eveolution the fact that chickens can be made my changing their DNA to growth teeth is one of the major ones for it. The chickens have had somnething in their history which allows them to grow teth - because they are evoloved from Sauriscia.
Now why are you willing to accept the word of one book, whos authors ahve no evidence at all for the way they say the world was created instead of the theories of others - which have some kind of evidence, if not definite proof, behind them?

Allan: WHAT IS RIGHT?

 

[floppa21]

You should have read the rest of this article...you're arguement has already been thrown out. The bacteria? I am currently getting shots for some allergies...they gradually reduce my susceptibility to the substances. It is not a dna change, nor will I pass it to my offspring. If I duplicated as a bacteria does, it would also appear in my duplicate, but notice, it can always return. No mutation has ever been recorded as permanent.

So uh, what about the AIDS virus? What's that they say it does? Something to do with EVOLVE??? What does shots for allergies have to do with anything? You may as well get a shot of deprovara! You're talking about a tolerance to something...

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Hello again Tekki.

If you could just point me to the date and time of the post that threw out the concept of evolution among bacteria, I'll fetch it back in for you.

Let's at least not claim points that are not conceded. I haven't claimed a victory on the laws of thermodynamics although no one is arguing against what I said. But nobody actually conceded either. So you are welcome to come forward with new supporting arguments when you like.

Mind you, since FL2 now seems willing to recognize variation in nature, I think the discussion has rendered such spurious forays a little irrelevant. Perhaps we should just knuckle down to discovering how populations can reach a point, through more and more variation, where they become a separate species from other populations isolated from them.

I am not upset by FL2 by the way. The only time I came close was when he dismissed a wonderful piece of reasoning by one of the world's greatest scientists as a "lucky guess". I think that was the phrase he used. But even then I was mostly disappointed that he could lower himself to such an ignorant response (I assume he has never read the text, because if he had I can see no logical way in which he could call it a guess, lucky or otherwise).

 

[allan]

Graehme: "Allan: WHAT IS RIGHT?"

Peace, justice, honesty, forgiveness. Everyone who's sane has some sense of right or wrong--what does that sense tell you to do? If you need help, every religion offers guidelines, and they are pretty much the same from religion to religion (ignore the parts that are written to make those religions "the only way", for the benefit of people in power). But you may not need help either, you may just know in your heart what is right and wrong. As the Dalai Lama once said: "It is not important which religion you belong to, or even if you belong to any religion. What is important is whether or not you are a good person."

Basically, I believe our "mission" as a species is to settle other worlds before we destroy this one--and of course, never to destroy this one either. How we can do this isn't that easy to determine--and I'll bet many other intelligent alien species have failed, and probably very few have succeeded. Will we pass our test? We're going to have to tread VERY carefully in the coming months with this war we're in, and if we make this hurdle there will no doubt be other ones as well....

 

[Graeme the mad]

Okay, I have more time now and am going to mak my opinions clear in a hopefully clear manner:

flopa I've read through the thread and there is nothing to disprove the super resitant bacteria - what you say still makes no senase at all, I presume therefore you dont understand what im on about and I will attempt to clairfy.
Penicillin is being used on the treatment of bacterial diseases, it has been widely successful and each time it is used it wipes out large amounts of bacteria, occasionally however some bacteria have a mutation which makes them resistant to penicillin. These are the only bacteria which get to reproduce and are not in competition with others which do not have the resistance. Since penicillin is so widely used, on minor colds and things, there are many bacteria now which are resistant to penicilling, this means that in 30 years time (according to WHO) it is possible penicillin may be rendered useless: THIS IS HAPPENING
Bacteria which may otherwise have died out have now survived and the species as a whole (though I realsie bacteria are not one species) have changed.
On evolution in general the very fact that the skeletal design of Every vertebrae is basically the same with adjusments which are advantageous to its conditions support the theory of evolution.

Allan im afraid to say you are a misguided hypocrite: you may be trying to do 'good' but do you really believe that by posting topics on a civilisation forum you are in anyway contributing to the settlment of another planet (please explain where this idea comes from anyhow).
I knwo you intend to be nice to everyone and try to make the world a better place but you are not doing it by this: you are wasting time and resources on work better spent helping those who need help. Im am not blaming for this, since it is what we all do, but I wish you would stop claiming, and believing things are otherwise.
'Peace, justice honety, forgiveness' - im sorry but this is not the way people work: if this is what the creator wanted why not create a species cabaple of doing these things on an all time basis because Humans are basically incapable of it.
All religion is a force against peace and justice and honesty and forgiveness, whatever its founder may have believed. It is a tool to be manipulated to gain power over the majority, just as advertising and patriosm are: Im sorry but religion is a really nasty business, more people have lost their lives throguh religious intolerance than have had their lives prolonged through the work of the relgious. And im talkint million, if not billions more.
However thigns would not be dfifferent if religions did not exist (in Britain passive atheism is the religous stance anhd yet things are not wonderful) because other things take their place: religion is people.

 

[allan]

"Allan im afraid to say you are a misguided hypocrite: you may be trying to do 'good' but do you really believe that by posting topics on a civilisation forum you are in anyway contributing to the settlment of another planet (please explain where this idea comes from anyhow)."

This "idea" basically comes from this fact: we are in an age where we have the firepower to render our planet uninhabitable. If this is the only planet we inhabit, then if we use this firepower it will render our race extinct. If our race thus spreads ourselves out to other worlds (and this would eventually happen with advances in space flight), we will no longer collectively face the danger of extinction that we presently face (with all our nuclear weapons, growing ecological hazards, etc.).

Hence I believe we are at a critical juncture in our survival as a species--and it can go either way. Working for peace, being tolerant of each other (even on a small, local level if enough people do it--and enough of our leaders do it at the level THEY can) is working toward preventing the destruction of our planet before we can expand off of it.

"I knwo you intend to be nice to everyone and try to make the world a better place but you are not doing it by this: you are wasting time and resources on work better spent helping those who need help. Im am not blaming for this, since it is what we all do,"

We can all lead by example. Be a good person, and others can see how beneficial that can be. I hold no particular position of power, so that is all I can do. That is all most people can do. I DO help my neighbor however I can, when he is in need. That is part of being a good person.

"but I wish you would stop claiming, and believing things are otherwise."

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

"'Peace, justice honety, forgiveness' - im sorry but this is not the way people work: if this is what the creator wanted why not create a species cabaple of doing these things on an all time basis because Humans are basically incapable of it."

People ARE NOT incapable of it. Many do live by these things every day. Unfortunately, many of those IN POWER do not.

And the creator gave us free will. Are we fit to survive? That is what we must ask ourselves, and if we want to survive as a species we must work for it. It ain't a free ride.

"All religion is a force against peace and justice and honesty and forgiveness, whatever its founder may have believed. It is a tool to be manipulated to gain power over the majority, just as advertising and patriosm are"

You are absolutely right. However, there are many people who are religious and at the same time very tolerant toward others. I know many people who have been HELPED by religion too--who have been depressed or suicidal or self-destructive or even destructive of others, who changed their ways after encountering religion.

I for one do not follow any religion--although I believe there is a God--but for some people, religion gives them a guideline to being good people. Unfortunately, there are others who use it to manipulate people.

In short, religion, like nuclear fission, can be a tool for good or for evil, depending on the user. Your average religious person uses it for good, but a certain few in power use it for evil. And the "evil" is, of course, what makes the news, and the history books....

"Im sorry but religion is a really nasty business, more people have lost their lives throguh religious intolerance than have had their lives prolonged through the work of the relgious. And im talkint million, if not billions more."

I'm not so sure. Who can count how many people have been affected by religion-inspired charity? But again, it's the USER, not the tool, that should be judged here. PEOPLE kill people.

"However thigns would not be dfifferent if religions did not exist (in Britain passive atheism is the religous stance anhd yet things are not wonderful) because other things take their place: religion is people."

You're right. Except that there are probably many people who would have less of a sense of morality without the help of religion. For some people, religion may be the only thing staying their knife-hand from someone's back, so to speak.... I've known people like that, too. For many people, it may be the only thing giving them a sense of obligation to others besides themselves--which is also quite important for a society to function. Religion isn't NECESSARY to be moral, but for many people it can certainly help.

Which is why I do not condemn religion, just those people who use it destructively.

 

[Tekki]

Graem...you still have yet to explain for the fact that no complete change between species or even bacteria has occured. Tolerances always differ. If you never touched dirt you would be much more allergic to various things than someone who had played outside in the dirt as a child. And yet again you take all religions as a method of controlling people...penvzilla already tried that. 99% of all religions have been attempts to explain the unexplainable. I believe that Christianity fits in best with scientific evidence.(Can you name me something in the Bible that there is proof against?) I mean, if yuo consider that 90% of all fossils were most likely created by huge pressures of water over a matter of a few seconds or minutes ...what can explain that sort of feat with thousands of fossils? A world-wide deluge. I would like individual opinions on what religion is to be omitted from this debate, as thus far they have only served as insults to one side or another.

 

[Tekki]

I will now mention two things: one that helps disprove evolution, and one that helps prove the Bible's truth and accuracy.

Did you ever notifce how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with a shockingly impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212 degrees F, out from two tail pipes right into the unfortunate face of the would be aggressor. Dr. Hermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studdied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an inhibitor. The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the checmicals indefintely. Whenever our beetle friend ois approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at the precisly the right moment ahe adds another chemical(an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker. Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forved to respone with a somewhat sheepish "yes", but a brief consideration of this opinion will revieal its preposterous nature. Acoording to evolutionary "thinking" there must have been thousands oif generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experimients,m blowing themselves to peices. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at teh magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit.On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, let us assume that our little beetle friends somehow managed to simultaneously, developt the two chemicals along with the all-important inhibitor. The resultant solutuion would offer no benifit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must be added to the solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage; until finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustratuing the efforts of the ungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah yes, he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, anda precise communicational direction and timing of the explosion. so, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to bits until finally they mastered their new found powers. But waht woukd be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to make perfect sense and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But suh a process does not make any sense at all, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is astronomically improbable, if not impossible. Yet, nature abounds in countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder.


My proof of the accuracy of the Bible is here:

Ezekiel 26

In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the owrd of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to teh nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,' therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make hera bare rock. Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on the mainland wil be ravanged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord. For this is what the Sovereign Lord says : From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at teh noise of the war horses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. The hoofs of his horses will trample all your streetsl he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars wikll fall to the ground. They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stoens, timber and rubble into the see. I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says to tyre: Will not the coastlands trmble at teh sound of your fall, when the wounded groan and the slaughter takes place in you? Then all the princes of the coast will step down from their thrones and lay aside their robes and take off their embroidered garments. clothed with terror, they will sit on the ground, trembling every moment, appalled at you. Then they will take up a lament concerning you and say to you:

blah blah blah(unimportant song-poem thingie)

then end he basically repeats a few things.


If anyone can say these things did not happen...go ahead if you can whew! long post

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Tekki, braveheart.

Second point first: Can you verify from evidence that the account was in fact written before the razing of Tyre?

I'm not really bothered about this, but if you want to debate it properly you should set up a separate thread. Be aware that dealing with concepts like belief and faith is very difficult.

Bombardier beetles:

It is some time since I read about this. It is probably in one of Stephen Jay Gould's books (serious point: have you read any of them?) but I'm not sure how quickly I could find it. Not to disappoint you I offer this : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html.

It is very detailed and it contradicts some aspects of the description you have given, and accomodates your principle point by demonstrating a plausible evolutionary path.

It is a (legitimate) technique of creationists to search out instances of complexity in nature with which to challenge evolution. This is good for science. However they seem reluctant to drop cases that have been answered and often take the questionable step of failing to mention the work done in answer to their case, presumably on the basis that their target audience is unlikely to delve into the sources and research on the subject. I would assume that the document you culled this from did not mention that it had been extensively addressed by scientists some years ago.

But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution?

Successful evolution is not about motivation or intention, it is about outcomes. In a crude sense your image is true; it is perfectly possible (in a theoritical way, I am not commenting on the actual physics and chemistry and biochemistry involved) that some poor beetle, suffered a particular genetic mutation that led to it exploding. And if that happened after it had successfully bred then the characteristic could easily have been inherited. However it does not sound like much of a recipe for survival to have to race to breeding before you explode.

Everything in evolution is supposed to make perfect sense and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop.

Nothing is perfect in evolution. Evolution is about what works compared with what does not work or at least works less well. The logic, just like the observation, only comes with hindsight. There is no plan.

The only criterion for successful evolution is the existence of the organism that has evolved. The only cause of extinction is a species-wide failure to reproduce, for whatever reason.

90% of all fossils were most likely created by huge pressures of water over a matter of a few seconds or minutes

Tekki, have you tried to do the physics for that kind of event? I think you will find that massive sudden pressure is more likely to destroy than preserve things. Take a step further back: what quantities of water are involved in a world-wide deluge sufficient to create this huge pressure. It cannot be done with rain, it would have to be a solid body of water. The putative ark would have needed an incredible umbrella to withstand the pressures, or to put it another way, how did anything survive a power that could produce instant fossils?

Allan, why not bite the bullet and distinguish between religion and the existence of a god. If a god were to exist, then that would remain true whether or not there are any religions, they being human institutions. I would be happy to debate your points on another thread if you set it up, but right here it just gets in the way of a very complex discussion.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by floppa21
Wow fearless leader... After reading this entire thread, boy, what can I say? I'm not surprised. TYPICAL CHRISTIAN? Or I should say STEREOTYPICAL CHRISTIAN... Well, Jesus is patient, you should take a tip.

Umm, aren't I the one who said he was a BAD Christian? I'm just no good at it. I've tried being a devout Christian, but I just don't have what it takes. I've tried being a hedonist too(that was fun for a while!), but I am cursed with this disease called a conscience, so I just can't enjoy the concept of wallowing in my own selfish desires while those around me suffer. I'm stuck somewhere in the middle.

Originally posted by floppa21
You talk so much about evidence, shreds of evidence, but you have no evidence either. It is all opinion, useless at that, based on a book? Hmm...

I seem to be a little rusty...could you point out the Scriptures where I took the information on finches and dogs? Especially the St. Bernards part... I used this little thing we in the English-speaking world like to call LOGIC, IE IF A = B, AND IF A = C, THEN logically, B = C. You see, I have taken various true statements, from numerous accepted sources, and used them as threads to weave an indestructible argument, one that remained inviolate for months. Before you can come along and think you may merely start up again, you have to deal with the fact that you are not the one arguing from a position of strength. I am. I am the one who shot down all comers. I am the one who no one wanted to embarrass themselves against. You are the challenger, and to come into this ring acting like you are the one carrying the title belt, and I am seeking to win it, is callow at best, and outright deceptive if point of fact.
It is true that I have illustrated the fact that the Bible does not contradict reality in this regard, but I have never used an argument following the formula [Since the Bible says ______, evolution is false.] What I have done is use the formula [Since all of these things(insert various arguments based on known facts) are true, and the Theory of Evolution cannot explain these things, it must be a false doctrine. Since the Bible agrees with them, the Bible is correct.]

If people want to use this information as a basis for looking at the Bible as more than something for a preacher to thump on a pulpit, that's fine with me. If they want to go in some third direction, that's fine too. But anyone who still stubbornly clings to the outdated and openly wrong-headed concept of evolution as a casus sum, is going to earn my scorn.

Originally posted by floppa21
You shouldn't claim to be a Christian, you make the average non-brainwashee think even worse about it than they already do...

I'm not about converting people to Christianity, I'm about turning people away from blindly following lies. If, after all this is said and done, you still want to worship Bhudda, Thor, the Great Pumpkin, or nothing at all, more power to you. Just so long as you understand that life didn't get here by itself. At least, not in the way that scientists are saying.

The truth is all I care about. If the only way to get it into people's heads is by bashing their thick skulls open with it, then so be it. Evolution is a lie, plain and simple. It is NOT scientific, it does NOT follow the Scientific Method, NO experimentation can be done to prove or disprove its theories, NO transitional fossils exist to even prove speciation, no species has ever been witnessed transforming into another. Furthermore, the only experiments done to attempt to prove any of it's sub-portions, have done the exact opposite. I've run my tanks over this ground before, and it's nothing but scorched earth. Go back through this entire topic, and read all of it. My armored divisions have run roughshod over everything that has entered their sights, and only a few shattered personell carriers and craters now show where they once stood. I did such a fine job of cratering evolution, that no-one had a word left to say, for FIVE DAMN MONTHS!

Originally posted by floppa21
You will accept "God's opinion anyday"... Great... What about Tigger and Eeyore's opinion? Or Paul's?

On Pooh's state of mind? I'll accept it. On evolution? That's a topic I don't think they've ever addressed, and before I listened to their opinion on it, I'd want to see some credentials. You guys managed to operate a web browser, so I'm guessing you have enough intelligence to have read a book or something.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

First things first: Allan, I basically agree with you, this really is irrelevant, but it does allow me to tweak the nose of Establishment Science, so it is also quite fun. As to the sterile cross-breeds, well, obviously, no speciation is occuring, since they are sterile. What you have going on is two different species, that are close enough, genetically speaking, to generate offspring, but that offspring is a third type altogether, and unable to breed. It really is apple and oranges(to borrow a broken record) to this thread.

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Well if you choose examples from within a species then of course there is no speciation by definition. What is your point?

Oh no, no having the cake and eating it too. If we want to shift the topic from evolution to speciation, I'll be wanting a definition of speciation. We already know that "Evolution is the change in frequency of an allelle in a population." So what, exactly, is speciation?

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
I'll dig you out of the trap when I've got time to find the relevant texts.

"Again, " he asked, moderately annoyed at what appeared to be yet another callow tactic, "...what trap?"

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Do u quite understand the argument about the bacteria because your 'disproval' of it makes no sense.

Again, nothing left here but scorched earth and tank tracks. But just to prove I'm a nice guy, what exactly about my dismissal of your 'germ warfare' didn't you understand, so that I may better enlighten you?

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
If you want real proof of eveolution the fact that chickens can be made my changing their DNA to growth teeth is one of the major ones for it. The chickens have had somnething in their history which allows them to grow teth - because they are evoloved from Sauriscia.

All this proves is that genetic engineering can produce some pretty messed-up animals.

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Now why are you willing to accept the word of one book, whos authors ahve no evidence at all for the way they say the world was created instead of the theories of others - which have some kind of evidence, if not definite proof, behind them?

Again, I have never based an argument on the Bible. I have argued that since it does not contradict valid, proven scientific facts, it is correct in those areas, and that lends credence to areas where it has not yet been disproven. The 'theories of others', on the other hand, have been widely disproven. They do not have evidence behind them. What they have is a bunch of axe-grinding paleobiologists in desperate need of grant money supporting each others' work with their own papers so that no one will know what is actually going on and the money will keep pouring in. It is high time that we quit wasting money on research that is not only outright false, but also worthless, at its base. I'm as much in favor of pure research as anyone else, but there is no profit in pursuing a lie for no better reason than because if the lie is uncovered, the researcher in question will now have a degree useful only for bird cage liner.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Mind you, since FL2 now seems willing to recognize variation in nature, I think the discussion has rendered such spurious forays a little irrelevant.

I have always done so, to imply otherwise is frankly insulting.

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Perhaps we should just knuckle down to discovering how populations can reach a point, through more and more variation, where they become a separate species from other populations isolated from them.

Indeed, high time this was addressed. I await your opening salvo.

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
I am not upset by FL2 by the way. The only time I came close was when he dismissed a wonderful piece of reasoning by one of the world's greatest scientists as a "lucky guess". I think that was the phrase he used. But even then I was mostly disappointed that he could lower himself to such an ignorant response (I assume he has never read the text, because if he had I can see no logical way in which he could call it a guess, lucky or otherwise).

In that I have never read the text in question, you are correct. I do not share your high opinion of Darwin, perhaps because the evolution issue has colored his other research, which may well be fine work. Call it guilt by association, if you will. Unfair, but hardly unexpected. Given my low opinion of his magnum opus, can you fault my turning a jaundiced eye at the rest of his work?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Graeme the Mad said--

Penicillin is being used on the treatment of bacterial diseases, it has been widely successful and each time it is used it wipes out large amounts of bacteria, occasionally however some bacteria have a mutation which makes them resistant to penicillin. These are the only bacteria which get to reproduce and are not in competition with others which do not have the resistance. Since penicillin is so widely used, on minor colds and things, there are many bacteria now which are resistant to penicilling, this means that in 30 years time (according to WHO) it is possible penicillin may be rendered useless: THIS IS HAPPENING

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm going to use small words Graeme, so I hope you'll understand.

Bacteria, make poo-poo squirts, come in two types: one type, penecillin fix, other type, penecillin no fix. Types is like doggie breeds, same animal, not same fur color. Fur color is doggie trait. Penecillin no fix is bacteria trait. Traits come, traits go, doggie still doggie, bacteria still bacteria. Doggie still bark, bacteria still make poo-poo squirts.

Do you get it yet?

He also said--

On evolution in general the very fact that the skeletal design of Every vertebrae is basically the same with adjusments which are advantageous to its conditions support the theory of evolution.

Yes, this must be right, because it would make a lot more sense if fish used Tinkertoys for a skeleton, lizards used Construx for theirs, and Birds used something else entirely. I mean, just because all vertebrates have to do all the same things: have a distinct form, use muscles to move, protect internal structures from casual contact with the environment, etc... there's absolutely no reason whatsoever, even though they all use the same four proteins in their genetic code, for all of them to handle these problems with the same elegant solution. I mean, just because William of Ockham likes things simple, that's no reason for nature to keep using an idea that works...

Oh, by the way, I'm being openly, scathingly, caustically, sarcastic. I would hate for all that sarcasm to be used, and the target not to get it.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

No time just now FL2 but check your earlier post. You talked about speciation, I just responded. Here is the quote from 11/10/01:

There is not now, nor has there ever been a shred of evidence of a speciation event, and no matter how hard you blow and spout, you cannot change that immutable fact.

But if you don't want to talk about speciation, how can you talk about evolution?

More later.