The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[ironduck]

Iron Duck-- Your comments are good. I could only address the questions based on what I explained. I don't see anything here that discount creation. Beautiful pictures as well. I just saw a double rainbow earlier this summer. Something that I don't think I have ever seen before. While most of you stand in awe at science, I stand in awe over the Creator, and the beauty of His Creation.

I don't stand in awe of science, I stand in awe of nature. Science is just a way to examine nature, nothing more. People who love science love to examine stuff, but people who love to examine stuff may not necessarily do so in a scientific manner. It's not a matter of value, it's a matter of purpose.

 

[ironduck]

I don't accept this, and I probably never will. It cannot be proven, and it is not observed. If so, I think we would see it in action today on a daily basis.

See what? See reptiles evolve into dinosaurs into birds during your lunch break? The whole point of evolution is that it happens in small steps that accumulate over generations. We can show this with fossils and we can make predictions that new fossils will be found that look in a specific way. And guess what? We find them. The predictions work.

 

[Souron]

Hrm, I thought this was common knowledge. I don't even know where to find official publications, it's just been part of my life for so long. So, sorry, I don't have really good links

http://virus.chem.ucla.edu/article.php/invitro - the second paragraph talks about this.

Basically, if you supply all the components of a virus (confirmed to be organic, but non-living, parts) you can get a virus out of the soup.

No, this is news to me. Not that I'm surprised, but I did not know about this kind of stuff. I guess it's because despite my partisipation in this tread, I don't realy like to study biology. Which also explains why many of my examples are from physics.

Thanks for the link.

 

[bgast1]

See what? See reptiles evolve into dinosaurs into birds during your lunch break? The whole point of evolution is that it happens in small steps that accumulate over generations. We can show this with fossils and we can make predictions that new fossils will be found that look in a specific way. And guess what? We find them. The predictions work.

Wouldn't these inbetween steps be seen every day, in our day to day lives? I'm honestly not trying to be hard headed, but I honestly don't see birds evolving into dinosaurs etc. Archaeopteryx has been shown to be fully bird. I have to read the links provided above yet, and I will when I have some time. I have to be to work tonight at midnight, and I didn't get much sleep last night so I will go to bed shortly for a little sleep. (I hope, Mondays are always hard on me). I'll try to read them later.

 

[Masquerouge]

Wouldn't these inbetween steps be seen every day, in our day to day lives? I have to read the links provided above yet, and I will when I have some time. I have to be to work tonight at midnight, and I didn't get much sleep last night so I will go to bed shortly for a little sleep. (I hope, Mondays are always hard on me). I'll try to read them later.

Well, simple logic would say that what you see today, in your day-to-day life, are the in-between steps. Maybe that mammal over there will turn in a million years into a whole new species, who knows?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Archeopteryx has both birdlike and dinosaurlike characteristics, it is not true to say that it is "fully bird". Likewise, the whale ancestor fossils we saw earlier in the thread have traits of both terrestrial and aquatic animals. Again, evolution works by the accumulation of tiny steps over generations. You do not seem to realize how short a human lifespan is relative to the history of life on earth.

 

[ironduck]

Wouldn't these inbetween steps be seen every day, in our day to day lives?

We do see them. There have been several links to speciation in this thread - those are exactly examples of little steps. Another example is Perfection's favourite example of the nylon bug . Another example are finches on Galapagos that recently got a smaller beak as a result of the arrival of competition. There are a lot of examples everywhere of animals (and plants and bacteria and virii..) changing in little steps before our eyes. Evolution of major new features take many generations. The shorter the lifespan the easier it is for us to observe changes because we can monitor more generations.

You seem to demand that a bird changes into a dragon over a single generation while you watch it happen, and nothing else will satisfy you. That is extremely unlikely to happen (because the number of genetic mutations required would need to be massive and pretty much all beneficial all at once). The only practical way to demonstrate such large scale changes are through the fossil record. When we can date fossils and watch as the bone structures change through the timeline we can make predictions of what has likely happened in the undiscovered record gaps, and this is indeed done, we find transitional fossils all the time, for instance between reptiles and birds. Likewise, we can make genetic predictions. For instance, it was predicted that there would be a universal genetic code which turned out to be true.

You seem to purposely demand something that is exceedingly unlikely to be shown (fish to mammal during a single generation), and therefore dismiss everything as false. On the other hand you don't see a problem believing the literal word of stories that are thousands of years old and have absolutely no evidence going for them.

 

[Veritass]

Wouldn't these inbetween steps be seen every day, in our day to day lives? I'm honestly not trying to be hard headed, but I honestly don't see birds evolving into dinosaurs etc.

I think one of the biggest hurdles to people believing in evolution is that we just cannot really get a sense of what a million years is, or 100 million, or a few billion.

This is classic example, where bgast1 appears to believe at least somewhat in what is normally termed "micro-evolution." Correct me if I am wrong, but supposedly this would imply that he believes in genetic recombination and genetic shift, and maybe even natural selection to some degree, but that it can only go so far.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Because micro-evolution, given enough time (like millions of years), becomes macro-evolution. A worm won't turn into a snake in a generation, but in enough generations it can turn into two types of worms, and given a few hundred million years it could turn into something else unlike a worm.

 

[ironduck]

Hey, I think it's difficult for most people to picture, which is exactly why the whole concept was so revolutionary for biology. But because of fossils and dna analysis evidence is really everywhere.

We can't see atoms very well either, but we have pretty good evidence for their existence.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Atoms are unfathomably small and operate on uncomprehensibly small time scales, just as evolution requires imponderaby large amounts of time and astronomy uses staggeringly large sizes. Thus the beauty of science.

 

[Souron]

Yep. It's immportant to emphasize exactly how long 4,000,000,000 years is. Untill reciently most humans will lived for only 40 years. So life is 100,000,000 lifetimes long.

 

[bgast1]

It would appear that we are at a standstill. While I have not read the rest of the threads yet and I have not read the links provided for me yet, and I will, I don't believe that my confidence in what I believe will be shaken. Neither will many, if any be willing to alter your views. They are as firmly ingrained in you as a social more.

The confindence I have in the Bible is for another thread, which I feel unwilling to tackle. Let it rest that I am confident that when it all turns out in the end, the majority of my beliefs will be vindicated.

Eran of Arcadia--your religion and my religion do not square in the least. Most denominations of Christianity would consider Mormanism to be a cult. It would be for another thread, but I am again unwilling to come to your thread and offer up criticisms. You will be no more shaken in your beliefs than me. And, I wouldn't want you to. People should not change their faith or belief unless they are fully committed to it.

It is human nature to hold on strong to what we believe. I am willing to die for my faith. The only way that we would be able to change our minds would be to examine the evidence and decide on our own. This is what I have done. When Christianity and the Bible taken as a whole is trully examined, I feel no other conclusion can be drawn but to embrace God.

I do not feel Perfection, neither any of you have up until this point KO's creationism anymore than I have convinced you that there is a God behind it all the created it all.

So, please by all means continue to keep this thread alive, and I will continue to read it.

One last comment in this thread. Truth is not relavant, truth is absoulute. At some point evolution or Creationism will be shown to be right, and the other wrong.

 

[ironduck]

Two points:

1) It seems you really don't understand what science is. It's not a 'social more' to assume that the theory of evolution is true. I think it's true because there's a lot of evidence for it, and nothing substantial against it. It's not perfect since our knowledge is limited - but that's the nature of scientific models. Let's say that we uncover a bunch of stuff from an alien civilization that shows how they set up and directed life on earth, then of course that would mean a lot of science might need to be trashed and we would have to learn a whole bunch of new stuff. And that would be cool. That's because it's not a belief system, it's the desire to learn about the world. Whatever that world turns out to be.

2) It's funny that you call mormonism a cult. In my view Eran's version of his religion is far, far less cult-like than yours because he is capable of separating logic and faith. Something you do not seem able to.

 

[Souron]

It is human nature to hold on strong to what we believe. I am willing to die for my faith. The only way that we would be able to change our minds would be to examine the evidence and decide on our own. This is what I have done. When Christianity and the Bible taken as a whole is trully examined, I feel no other conclusion can be drawn but to embrace God.

I do not feel Perfection, neither any of you have up until this point KO's creationism anymore than I have convinced you that there is a God behind it all the created it all.

So, please by all means continue to keep this thread alive, and I will continue to read it.

This thread dose not seak to make people believe in evolution; that is secondairy. This thread is here to discuss the following two claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim

You seam to have conceeded the second claim, but not the first. Perhalps if you understood Evolution better you would conceed the first as well.

 

[carlosMM]

CarlosMM -- If I describe "kind" to you I probably might fall into "taxon". Especially since I am not as versed in definitions as you. "Kind" or "Type" to me are synonomous. A bird is a bird and always has been a bird. A dog is a dog and always has been a dog. A human is a human and always has been a human. God created us as male and female. I accept the Biblical story.

OK, that's an unusally straight answer from a creationist for once - thank you


The problem I see is that you take categories (bird, dog, human) that are entirely artificial and - especially - arbitrary!

If a bird is a bird, is then a barn swallow a member of the 'bird' kind or a member of the 'swallow' kind? or is it a member of the 'neognathe' kind?

If you answer 'both a bird in general and a neognathe and swallow specifically', thne indeed you equate 'kind' and 'taxon'. In the biblical sense, 'kind' then becomes meaningless. Noah could just have taken a primitive bacterium 4 billion years old and that would have sufficed.

if, OTOH, you say that the word 'kind' has a concise meaning (examples for 'kind' are 'birds', 'dog', 'human', then you get into serious trouble, too: Have ALL birds come, withint the last few thousand years, from ONE COUPLE of birds? How come 'dog' is the kind, not 'canine' (including wolves, foxes, etc.)?

My rejection of evolution is faith based for the most part, but I have read several books which offer scientific evidence, which had a huge part in convincing me as well. As I stated earlier, science alone cannot answer the deep down questions that we wonder about. There is more than science in our makeup. For instance, as I asked before, how is that we all know that murder is wrong.

Simple answer: we do NOT all know murder is wrong! True, 99% of all societes have made that rule, but no newborn knows, and there is quite a number of socieites (or was, most of them have been exterminated) who think murder normal and acceptable.

 

[Markus6]

Wouldn't these inbetween steps be seen every day, in our day to day lives? I'm honestly not trying to be hard headed, but I honestly don't see birds evolving into dinosaurs etc.

We are an inbetween step. Did you see the article about the boy born with 3 arms? In 50 years we'll all have at least 4.

Seriously though, there is no such thing as an inbetween step.

The confindence I have in the Bible is for another thread, which I feel unwilling to tackle.

I also have confidence in the bible. God gave us two books to study him: the bible and creation. We use theology to interpret the bible, and science to interpret nature. The bible was written by humans, whereas nature was created by God so when interpreting the bible you have to consider: who the writer is and what knowledge do they have; who are they writing too; and what are they trying to get across. If reading the bible tells you something about science that nature tells you is wrong then you probably want to have another look at how you are interpreting the bible.

 

[Veritass]

The confindence I have in the Bible is for another thread, which I feel unwilling to tackle. Let it rest that I am confident that when it all turns out in the end, the majority of my beliefs will be vindicated....I am again unwilling to come to your thread and offer up criticisms. You will be no more shaken in your beliefs than me. And, I wouldn't want you to...I am willing to die for my faith...When Christianity and the Bible taken as a whole is trully examined, I feel no other conclusion can be drawn but to embrace God.

Once I saw a bumper sticker that read,
God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
I find that bumper sticker to be very scary.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

For the usual value of God, what God says is settled.

Worry rather about whether the man behind the bumper sticker is listening to God or Satan.

 

[warpus]

It would appear that we are at a standstill. While I have not read the rest of the threads yet and I have not read the links provided for me yet, and I will, I don't believe that my confidence in what I believe will be shaken.

It appears as though you've already made up your mind - even before examining the evidence.

Your faith is preventing you from questioning your beliefs. You seem open-minded enough - but when it comes down to it you've already made up your mind about the truth (tm).