Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

First, it does seem typical that you want to claim "scientific" yet avoid any definition of terms or proof of your claims.

To creationists, yeah. You've already made it abundantly clear that you have extremely strong and personal beliefs on this issue, and that plus your copy-paste-and-run pattern of behavior means a reasonable, objective, and thoughtful discussion with you is pretty much impossible.

Instead of wasting space, why don't you help him out with a definition? You're a giant hive mind back there behind the curtain anyway, aren't you?

I'm being realistic.

Second, I object to your analogy, seeing that we have scriptural example of Jesus having proved to the Jew that it is OK to eat shrimp. Peter comes to mind. I still dislike shrimp because of its texture and flavor, but I am persuaded that it need not be rejected for reasons of law.

Yet Jews still follow their dietary laws, which proves my point.

 

[gcthomas]

I take it that you don't understand the difference then. As such you really have no idea what you're arguing. How can you offer alleged "proof of evolution" if you don't know what (or refuse to define) evolution to begin with?

There is another possibility that you do know the difference but refuse to speak, knowing that arguments get settled and arguments won (one way or the other, and you fear the other) if we do define our terms.

The reason I didn't answer your question is that you had failed to answer any of mine. What are you scared of, that someone might notice that you have no technical understanding at all?

Don't worry, that particular horse has well and truly bolted.

(BTW, definitions are not a point for discussion, as there are standard, agreed definitions for most terms you might like to propose. I have seen many come and go in this forum whose frequent debating tactic was to divert productive discussions into fruitless arguments over 'definitions', with the sole aim of manipulating definitions to allow creationism in by a sleight of hand.)

 

[Rosenritter]

Where did you get that idea? Surely you must have read somewhere that observations suggest that the universe has zero total energy, which makes the big bang an energy neutral event. (Conservation of matter isn't even a real basic law. Your arguments are weaker when you include such nonsense.)

As for the presence of a world with the building block elements, Fred Hoyle himself contributed a lot to the physics that explains where that all came from, naturalistically.

Since you discount the "laws of conservation of matter and energy" then do you suggest that the universe came into being, as an effect without a cause? Or do you suggest that matter has always existed? Please, do elaborate.

 

[Rosenritter]

The reason I didn't answer your question is that you had failed to answer any of mine. What are you scared of, that someone might notice that you have no technical understanding at all?

Don't worry, that particular horse has well and truly bolted.

(BTW, definitions are not a point for discussion, as there are standard, agreed definitions for most terms you might like to propose. I have seen many come and go in this forum whose frequent debating tactic was to divert productive discussions into fruitless arguments over 'definitions', with the sole aim of manipulating definitions to allow creationism in by a sleight of hand.)

Only a fool proceeds into an argument where the definitions are not settled. A dishonest person refuses to define his terms but insists on arguing anyway. If you do not wish to argue on fair terms, you are welcome to cease anytime.

 

[gcthomas]

Only a fool proceeds into an argument where the definitions are not settled. A dishonest person refuses to define his terms but insists on arguing anyway. If you do not wish to argue on fair terms, you are welcome to cease anytime.

I will accept the meanings commonly commonly accepted by the scientific community. We don't need to debate definitions unless you wish to depart from them. Your call.

 

[Rosenritter]

I will accept the meanings commonly commonly accepted by the scientific community. We don't need to debate definitions unless you wish to depart from them. Your call.

I anticipate shifting definitions if these aren't nailed down. Could you briefly describe to me the mechanism by which natural selection works?

Because I would like to ask you to put forth a brief positive argument as to why you think one should consider or believe evolution theory, and I don't want these two things confused in mid explanation.

 

[Rosenritter]

Why on earth would I believe matter has always existed when it was me who informed you that you understanding of physics was to shaky and that there really was no law of conservation of matter.

As an addition to your education effects, to use your term, do not always have causes. Events can and do happen spontaneously.

So.... Poof! There is a planet when none before existed? Isn't that another version of creation theory? You just don't have a name for that God. Please share so I needn't guess what you mean.

 

[gcthomas]

So.... Poof! There is a planet when none before existed? Isn't that another version of creation theory? You just don't have a name for that God. Please share so I needn't guess what you mean.

Thanks for pointing out where you depart from common definitions.

Spontaneous normally means without cause, which necessarily means without a god causing the event.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would like to ask you to put forth a brief positive argument as to why you think one should consider or believe evolution theory

It's pretty simple really. We see populations evolve all the time, every single day. It's such a common process that we even manipulate it to our own ends (e.g., domestication). That means evolution is an observed fact. We see it happen.

Given that, we now need some sort of explanation for how that process happens. What are its mechanisms? What pathways does it take and has it taken in the past? From that need we've developed the Theory of Evolution, which describes the mechanisms as well as its pathways.

So if you're going to dispute the Theory of Evolution, then you need to provide new mechanisms for how evolution occurs and/or different pathways that evolution takes or has taken.

Make sense?

 

[6days]

It's pretty simple really. We see populations evolve all the time, every single day. It's such a common process that we even manipulate it to our own ends (e.g., domestication). That means evolution is an observed fact. We see it happen.

Equivocate much?
As Jose Fly knows... rapid adaptation is the creationist model. We see it "every day". Organisms adapt due to pre-existing genetic information and mechanism...evidence of our Creator.

Rapid adaptation is an observed fact, and is consistent with Biblical creation.
Common ancestry beliefs is exactly that ...just a belief, akin to false religion.

 

[Rosenritter]

Thanks for pointing out where you depart from common definitions.

Spontaneous normally means without cause, which necessarily means without a god causing the event.

So if a solid object like a hammer flew sideways across the room, you would say that was spontaneous, and covered by your understanding of Physics? I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but how would anything "spontaneous" under your model there be any more explainable?

 

[Rosenritter]

It's pretty simple really. We see populations evolve all the time, every single day. It's such a common process that we even manipulate it to our own ends (e.g., domestication). That means evolution is an observed fact. We see it happen.

Given that, we now need some sort of explanation for how that process happens. What are its mechanisms? What pathways does it take and has it taken in the past? From that need we've developed the Theory of Evolution, which describes the mechanisms as well as its pathways.

So if you're going to dispute the Theory of Evolution, then you need to provide new mechanisms for how evolution occurs and/or different pathways that evolution takes or has taken.

Make sense?

Actually Jose, it does not. I think you are confusing Natural Selection with Evolution. We observe Natural Selection happen in the world around us. Never seen something evolve from one kind of creature to another. This was why I wanted definitions ahead of time.

If you want to field that question for GCThomas, would you be so kind as to provide your definitions for both Natural Selection and Evolution?

 

[Jose Fly]

I think you are confusing Natural Selection with Evolution.

No, I'm not.

We observe Natural Selection happen in the world around us.

Yes we do. That's why it's one of the mechanisms in the theory of evolution.

Never seen something evolve from one kind of creature to another.

I don't know what "one kind of creature" is. It's not a term I've ever seen in any scientific publication.

If you want to field that question for GCThomas, would you be so kind as to provide your definitions for both Natural Selection and Evolution?

Thomas is just fine on his own. As far as definitions for evolution and natural selection, you mean to say you don't know what those terms mean?

 

[Jonahdog]

So if a solid object like a hammer flew sideways across the room, you would say that was spontaneous, and covered by your understanding of Physics? I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but how would anything "spontaneous" under your model there be any more explainable?

MORON, very simple. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Rosenritter]

MORON, very simple. Thanks for the explanation.

If you keep saying those types of things about yourself you will start to believe it. And so might everyone else...

 

[Rosenritter]

No, I'm not.


Yes we do. That's why it's one of the mechanisms in the theory of evolution.


I don't know what "one kind of creature" is. It's not a term I've ever seen in any scientific publication.


Thomas is just fine on his own. As far as definitions for evolution and natural selection, you mean to say you don't know what those terms mean?

I think you might have them confused. We can observe natural selection, but that only reduces the genetic pool that already exists for that creature.

Evolution would require the opposite, that is, previously unknown data for structure would need to be added, not deleted.

You could select from dog DNA forever and get a ridiculous Chihuahua but you couldn't turn it into a cat like that. We can observe natural selection but it won't evolve something into something else. That's what I was asking for.

 

[6days]

I think you might have them confused. We can observe natural selection, but that only reduces the genetic pool that already exists for that creature.

Oh no..... You are attacking the 'Savior' of evolutionists...natural selection.
You are correct though. Natural selection eliminates.

"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation, most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

 

[6days]

Evolution would require the opposite, that is, previously unknown data for structure would need to be added, not deleted.

Wait...At this point they usually argue a lizard population rapidly evolved cecal valves.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hey Y'All,

Well, I'm gone for a day and you've left me 4 pages behind. I have to go for a couple hours and then I'll come back. See you then!!

With God's Love,

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

Oh no..... You are attacking the 'Savior' of evolutionists...natural selection.
You are correct though. Natural selection eliminates.

"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation, most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

Maybe you could post the content instead? Link didn't work for me.
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm on this server.

But I wasn't attacking Natural Selection, just supporting it in its role. A more generic set of features thins out and becomes more specialized. If you carve away a block of rock you can make a statue, and you could carve it into something else, but the block keeps getting smaller and smaller as you remove parts. You can't carve it any bigger. I think this is why no one else would define the term...