[hrothgar]

Edmunte1, on Dec 15 2007, 03:09 AM, said:

"a) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
b ) The fossil recors shows the species do not evolve but exist for million of years without changing
c)natural selection cannot change on species into another because it can work only on variation already present in the species.
d)The odds against random chance for producing a complex organism from lifeless ingredients are astronomical
e) life contains structures and systems too complex to have evolved gradually, step by step.
f) Evolution violates the second law of  thermodinamics
g)The rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution"

So my point of view is that evolution theory should not be used as an atheic theory. Humans, in all their history, were searching for the ultimate answers for the essential questions like our origin, and i think we are still far from that. Everyone has his choice that satisfies his way of understanding the universe, no matter if one's choice is Darwin's theory, or a catastrophic theory, or an external interference or an omnipotent creator

Where do you get this crap:

1. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth has an external energy source.

2. There are well documented examples of transitional forms. Moreover, evolutionary theory has been (successfully) used to predict likely locations at which said transitional forms would be found.

3. As noted earlier, the theory of evolution is not identical to abiogenesis

4. Your comment C is nothing more than an incorrect assertion. Ring species are the simplest counter example

5. Your comment E echo's Behe's arguments about irreducible complexity. Behe has not been able to provide any accepted examples of irreducible complexity. He was flayed alive last time he trotted out the bacterial flagellum.

6. Your comment G is simply delusional.

[helene_t]

Richard is right. If you really find a flaw in evolutionary biology, go submit it to a scientific journal. But you have to do better than citing all this crap about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, transitional species etc. It has been debunked so many times.

[jtfanclub]

Edmunte1, on Dec 14 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

"a) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Of course there are. You just aren't paying attention.

For example, suppose you were looking for a transitional link between rats and monkeys. You'd probably figure out it would be between them in size, better developed digits (especially) on the feet, more talkative than rats but less than monkeys, spent a lot of time in trees, etc. Such an animal scampers all over the United States and elsewhere. But nobody thinks of them as a 'transitional link', they think of them as squirrels.

There are thousands of transitional links just with birds, plus lots of mammals like Tapirs. I'm very curious how you could possibly define transitional link such that you aren't seeing obvious examples of it every day.

Quote

b ) The fossil recors shows the species do not evolve but exist for million of years without changing

In most cases, we find a few bones, and hey're similar to bones from millions of years earlier or later, and we assume that the animal is the same. It's not like we know whether they've changed or not. Maybe Crocodiles were bright orange and had rubbery skin millions of years ago. Who knows? And evolution is not a march towards progress. Many more basic animals likely wouldn't mate with something that was higher in the evolutionary chain but was 'different'.

Quote

c)natural selection cannot change on species into another because it can work only on variation already present in the species.

So...you don't believe horses and donkeys are separate species, or that they didn't evolve from a common ancestor? How about horses and zebras? Dogs and wolves? Like the transitional species, cases where natural selection created new species are all around you.

Quote

d)The odds against random chance for producing a complex organism from lifeless ingredients are astronomical

Funny you should use the word astronomical...when, of course, that's exactly what we have here. An entire universe and over 10 billion years to work with.

Quote

e) life contains structures and systems too complex to have evolved gradually, step by step.

Name one. I'll find you an example of a creature who has a less developed version of it.

Quote

f) Evolution violates the second law of thermodinamics

By that sort of twisted logic, so does technology, right? After all, if a more complex animal violates thermodynamics, so does a more complex machine.

Quote

g)The rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution"

A universal flood created dinosaurs? Trilobytes? Coal?

Your arguments are strange, to say the least.

[mike777]

At the very least I predict a great flood of change coming, soon. A flood that will profoundly affect humankind in unknown ways

As evolution seems to have accelerted the past 80,000 years in humans it will be interesting to speculate on just the next 100 years as more machine made parts are transplanted into humans for longer period of times and more human dna is transplanted into who knows what. Of course who knows what the near future may bring as far as human DNA/gene/protein manipulation.

Will it be legal in bridge to take something that enhances memory or concentration?
If the norm for say a 60 year old is say level A and a drug increases it to A+ in a 60 year old? Is an enhancement increase back to say age 15 ok?

[nige1]

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

I'm sorry if anyone considers this insulting.  But IMHO, anyone who seriously believes that a mythical super-being intercedes on the behalf of individual humans is delusional; it's the adult version of believing in Santa Claus.  And if you actually depend on this being to solve your problems, you're really in trouble.

The concept of god (or gods) was created when our species was in its infancy and was very ignorant.  "Common sense" from their daily lives suggested that changes are initiated by animate beings: humans and animals.  So to explain natural phenomena like weather, earthquakes, fires, illness, death, and the existence of nature itself, they assumed there had to be a causal agent, and they called this "god".  We now know much more about how things work, and we understand that things can happen spontaneously -- we don't need to posit an intelligent "ultimate cause" to explain the universe.

But religion ingrained in our culture.  It has strong political ties, and religious leaders enjoy great power that they don't want to give up.  Some also think that there may be a genetic predisposition to religious belief (the so-called "God gene"); religion unites communities, which affords better protection, and also allows shamans to work their healing "magic" more effectively, so religiously-inclined people tended to survive more (i.e. religion evolved by natural selection!).  So people are reluctant to give it up.

No, I don't bugrudge a disabled person the use of a true crutch.  But some types of crutches are appropriate, others are not.  Many people with problems turn to drugs or alcohol.  Although religion may not be as self-destructive as they are, I still see it as the wrong way to solve your problems.  You're not actually DOING anything, you're praying for someone to solve your problems for you.  How is this different from a beggar on the street, hoping for people to give him money?

My religion (Jewish) teaches that we were once slaves in Egypt, and God used his powers to get us liberated.  First of all, there's no historical evidence that we ever really were slaves, or that there was an exodus, but let's assume there was.  Should I be proud that we were freed by magic?  Compare this with the plight of African-Americans, who were enslaved for several hundred years in America, and even after they were officially emancipated they've been second-class citizens.  But they have actively fought (mostly non-violently) for increased civil rights.  They deserve the improvements in life that they've gotten, they weren't just handed to them by God, so they should be proud of their achievements.  On the other hand, I think most bigots are probably very religious, and think that white supremacy is their God-given status (and similarly for anti-gay); there's no rational reason, so they turn again to mythology to support their position.

That's one of the problems with religious: if you couch a belief in a religious context, you can get away with practically anything.  It's lucky that Catholic bishops never found anything in the Bible that they could interpret as commanding priests to fondle little boys -- if they did, parents would be actively pulling their kids' pants down.  If you don't believe this, remember that we cut off a piece of little boys' anatomy because of one line in the Old Testament.

Do I consider it insulting to be told that I'm at best a pathetic troubled ignorant delusional mentally-crippled child?

Perhaps I can console myself that such an unprovoked attack is sometimes an admission of defeat in argument.

IMO we all predicate our rational behavior on unprovable and unscientific moral assumptions. IMO this is analogous to a religious belief even if God isn't involved.

[PassedOut]

Edmunte1, on Dec 14 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

a)Creation science is not falsifiable
...
c) Creation science is not empirically testable

Couldn't we predict from creationism (and intelligent design) the following:

Because all species were individually designed by the supreme intelligence, no species will possess vestigial, now-obsolete body parts.

Is that prediction not testable?

[mikeh]

PassedOut, on Dec 15 2007, 12:28 AM, said:

Edmunte1, on Dec 14 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

a)Creation science is not falsifiable
...
c) Creation science is not empirically testable

Couldn't we predict from creationism (and intelligent design) the following:

Because all species were individually designed by the supreme intelligence, no species will possess vestigal, now-obsolete body parts.

Is that prediction not testable?

A valid point, imo. It has long seemed to me (and I don;t remotely assert this is an original thought on my part) that the best evidence of evolution is the flaws and defects both in our 'design' and in the 'error rate': the prevalence of certain genetic disorders, as an example. If god were a manufacturer of cars, he'd go bankrupt, because of the extraordinarily poor quality control evident in his product.

Surely others, than myself, find it ironic that healthy religious leaders proclaim that the suffering of others is all part of god's plan. Tell that to conjoined twins who share vital and non-divisible body parts, or babies born without facial struture, or with no arms or legs. Either god is a cruel, despicable entity delighting in the suffering of the innocent, or he is hopelessly incompetent...or...hey, what about this... our birth defect ratio is the result of the susceptibility of our genetic makeup to poor copying, and/or random chance, with the more common defects resulting from the fact that our DNA is more susceptible to error/mutation at some locations than others, as a result of several billion years of evolution.

[Fluffy]

I'm curious, are there any serious theories around about WHY the universe is there?

[gwnn]

mikeh, on Dec 15 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Dec 15 2007, 12:28 AM, said:

Edmunte1, on Dec 14 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

a)Creation science is not falsifiable
...
c) Creation science is not empirically testable

Couldn't we predict from creationism (and intelligent design) the following:

Because all species were individually designed by the supreme intelligence, no species will possess vestigal, now-obsolete body parts.

Is that prediction not testable?

A valid point, imo. It has long seemed to me (and I don;t remotely assert this is an original thought on my part) that the best evidence of evolution is the flaws and defects both in our 'design' and in the 'error rate': the prevalence of certain genetic disorders, as an example. If god were a manufacturer of cars, he'd go bankrupt, because of the extraordinarily poor quality control evident in his product.

Surely others, than myself, find it ironic that healthy religious leaders proclaim that the suffering of others is all part of god's plan. Tell that to conjoined twins who share vital and non-divisible body parts, or babies born without facial struture, or with no arms or legs. Either god is a cruel, despicable entity delighting in the suffering of the innocent, or he is hopelessly incompetent...or...hey, what about this... our birth defect ratio is the result of the susceptibility of our genetic makeup to poor copying, and/or random chance, with the more common defects resulting from the fact that our DNA is more susceptible to error/mutation at some locations than others, as a result of several billion years of evolution.

http://opblogsme.blogspot.com/2006/05/no-a...es-by-nick.html

[nige1]

Edmunte1, on Dec 14 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
  
  
  
  
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
  
  
  
  
• Useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
  
  
  
  
• Empirically testable and falsifiable
  
  
  
  
• based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
  
  
  
  
• Correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
  
  
  
  
• Progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
  
  
  
  
• Tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Edmuntel's list of scientific criteria is excellent; and he is to be congratulated on putting both sides of the argument; but I fear that the arguments he posits for classifying Creationism as a Science don't satisfy these criteria.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Dec 15 2007, 07:37 AM, said:

I'm curious, are there any serious theories around about WHY the universe is there?

While the 'why' of the universe is a challenging concept, there is no particular reaon, other than extrapolation of our own need to have underlying causes, for there to be a 'why', or for the 'why', if it exists, to be accessible to us.

That doesn't mean abandoning the pursuit of an answer.... by, for example, attributing the 'why' to the motives of an ineffable god... which forecloses all further enquiry by affording a superficially but fundamentally illusory sense of an 'answer'.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Dec 15 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

I'm curious, are there any serious theories around about WHY the universe is there?

Depends what the word "why" means in this context.

[Winstonm]

Good grief! How can it go this far?

Quote

Scottish backpacker stabbed to death after creationism row
By Kathy Marksin Sydney
Published: 15 December 2007
A bizarre row about evolution versus creationism led to an English backpacker fatally stabbing a Scottish backpacker during a fruit-picking trip to earn money for their travels.

Alexander York, 33, from Essex, was sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail yesterday for the manslaughter of Rudi Boa, 28, a biomedical student from Inverness.

The incident happened in January last year at a caravan park in southern New South Wales, where York had become friendly with Mr Boa and his girlfriend, Gillian Brown. The Scottish couple had just arrived in Australia, and headed to Tumut, a picturesque town at the foothills of the Snowy Mountains, to pick fruit.

Their neighbour at the Blowering Holiday Park was Alexander York, who had been in Australia since April 2005. The three of them got on well. On the night of Mr Boa's death, they had spent the evening drinking at a pub in Tumut, the Star Hotel.

Towards the end of the night, however, they became embroiled in the creationism versus evolution argument, and it escalated into a shouting-match in the pub. Mr Boa and Ms Brown were both adamantly opposed to York's Christian fundamentalist point of view.

Sentencing York in the New South Wales Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Michael Adams said: "Although this became perhaps a little sharp-edged, it did not really amount to anything.

"For some reason, however ... the offender's mood changed suddenly and he began to abuse Ms Boa and Ms Brown. There was no hint of a physical confrontation and what happened amounted to little more than a verbal contretemps."

The row had been defused by the time the backpackers left the pub separately, but all three were drunk, and tempers flared again after they returned to the caravan park.

Ms Brown told the court that York, who had been making dinner, attacked the couple outside his tent and delivered a single stab wound Mr Boa with a kitchen knife. York claimed he lashed out in self-defence after being attacked by Mr Boa.

He was found guilty of manslaughter but acquitted of murder, and ordered to serve at least three years in jail. The judge said he was giving him a relatively lenient sentence partly because of the accidental nature of the stabbing.

"I do not believe that he took aim, but rather thrust out," he said. "I think he knew that the knife was in his hand ... but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this.

"The offender's act was done impulsively and on the spur of the moment. I do not think the offender was aware of how seriously he had harmed Mr Boa."

The judge added that York was "a person of good character" and that the offence was "a complete aberration". York, unshaven and dressed in prison uniform, sat impassively as he was sentenced. Mr Boa's sister, Debbie, broke down when York was led into court, and during the sentencing.

A spokeswoman for the New South Wales office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said: "Justice Michael Adams QC took into account that part of the sentence has been served. Mr York is eligible for release in January 2009."

I guess you'd better watch your back if you refuse to drink the KoolAid.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Dec 15 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Good grief! How can it go this far?

<inflammatory post>

hasn't that been religion's way of dealing with non-believers for eons and eons?

</inflammatory post>

[Winstonm]

matmat, on Dec 15 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 15 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Good grief!  How can it go this far?

<inflammatory post>

hasn't that been religion's way of dealing with non-believers for eons and eons?

</inflammatory post>

Sure, but what about fundamental due process....waterboarded into confessing then burned at the stake. There are precedents, here, that have been ignored.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Dec 15 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

matmat, on Dec 15 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 15 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Good grief!  How can it go this far?

<inflammatory post>

hasn't that been religion's way of dealing with non-believers for eons and eons?

</inflammatory post>

Sure, but what about fundamental due process....waterboarded into confessing then burned at the stake. There are precedents, here, that have been ignored.

Did everyone miss the real point here?

You kill/knife someone in a drunken rage and get 3 years? less than 5 years? Cool...justice.
What does the dead guy get?

[barmar]

PassedOut, on Dec 15 2007, 01:28 AM, said:

Edmunte1, on Dec 14 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

a)Creation science is not falsifiable
...
c) Creation science is not empirically testable

Couldn't we predict from creationism (and intelligent design) the following:

Because all species were individually designed by the supreme intelligence, no species will possess vestigal, now-obsolete body parts.

Is that prediction not testable?

Where does that prediction come from? Religious people will simply trot out the tried and true "God works in mysterious ways" argument. This is precisely the problem with trying to treat a religious argument scientifically -- God is "above the law".

Also, many IDers don't reject that evolution has taken place in some cases, they just don't think that natural selection can explain the original genesis of life and some of its fundamental processes. They think the Designer set evolution in motion, but doesn't micro-manage it. This would account for vestigial organs.

A harder thing for them to explain is organs that are badly designed. In particular, they often point to the mammalian eye as an organ that requires a designer. But no competent designer would have had the optic nerve connect to the retina in the front rather than the back, creating a blind spot.

They want to have their cake and eat it, too. God is supposedly omnipotent, but as an engineer he's just barely competent.

[barmar]

nige1, on Dec 14 2007, 11:05 PM, said:

Do I consider it insulting to be told that I'm at best a pathetic troubled ignorant delusional mentally-crippled child?

If you pray rather than go to a doctor when you're injured or sick, then I think that would be an accurate description.

Similarly, for just about any problem you might have in life where you might turn to the church for help, I think I can point to competent secular sources of help. E.g. if you're having emotional distress, see a therapist, not a priest. If you want to know when life begins (or if this is even a meaningful concept), ask a biologist; religious officials base their answers on books that were written before anyone even knew what a cell was, and thought that life was caused by a "vital spirit", yet they're allowed to use these arguments in important political forums.

Even if there is a Creator of the Universe, it sure seems egotistical to think that He'd concern himself with the minutiae of individual lives. Thinking that the world resolves around oneself is another hallmark of immaturity. When such feelings of self-importance last past infancy we call them a "spoiled brat".

So yes, if you are so dependent on this magic being in the sky I feel sorry for you, just like I would someone who is unable to find work and has to live off their parents. It can't be very good for your self-esteem.

[luke warm]

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

I'm sorry if anyone considers this insulting.  But IMHO, anyone who seriously believes that a mythical super-being intercedes on the behalf of individual humans is delusional; it's the adult version of believing in Santa Claus.

as long as you admit it's your opinion only, fine... and the fact that it's your *humble* opinion makes everything right again

Quote

The concept of god (or gods) was created when our species was in its infancy and was very ignorant.

is there an unspoken IMHO here? if not, prove it

Quote

No, I don't bugrudge a disabled person the use of a true crutch.  But some types of crutches are appropriate, others are not.

i'm sure the disabled are grateful they aren't begrudged their crutches... and it's good to know upon whom to rely when discussing the appropriateness of crutches... it's good to have authorities

[Winstonm]

Backpeddling somewhat here, but I am somewhat surprised that no one has brought up the "Dominionist" movement and its influence on U.S. politics.