Man-ofGod vs Evolution, etc.

[SSY]

The wolf anaology is wrong, animals do not evolve from living animals, they both evolve from a common ancestor.

The line you quoted does not show why there would be wolves and dogs, in fact. it makes little sense at all in this context. There is no evidence for a god in the existance of wolves and dogs. The reason they are different is becuase man has domesticated dogs, simple.

Yes, evolution functions largley in part through mutations, no one would ever deny that. to be honest, I cant really see what you're saying here, are you sdaying evolution is not to do with mutation?

Your definition of adaptation is also, very confusing. The genetic code changes, and some of these changes help them survive, and are passed on. Thats called evolution. Me getting fitter after running a lot is an adaptation. One organism. The trait was passed on to many bacteria, they ddi not learn it, they were born with it, its evolution.

Whoever wrote that bacteria "adaptiing" is consistent with god is just wrong, sorry. Why do you call it adaption when it is clearly evolution?


There is more information in some genomes than others, yes. The most plausible explanation I have hard is gene duplication, which I already mentioned and you ignored.

Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”1 If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds! Lenski’s work shows a clear case of adaptation and not evolution.

This sia  logical fallacy, it is improbable, and therefor, impossible.


Your last thing, about propaganda from evolutionists, again, makes little sense. They said we evolved from lower orders of life, so this makes it true? do you agree with it?

Please define exactly the difference between adaption and evolution, how can a bacteria adapt? through chnages in its DNA or some other method, please be very precise. If you ignore the rest, please answer this bit.

[PipeBox]

I think this is more of a case of side stepping the scientific method, a pillar of science. This is the same wolf and the dog argument. One argument states these are two different species and proof of evolution, the other side states its the same kind of animal and proof of Creation (“Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind" - Genesis 1:24). Which side is correct? From a science point of view, neither is correct or incorrect , both fit.

ARGH.  From a science point of view, one tells us nothing.  If God created us, we still want to understand his method.  If there is any information to be found, and we labor under the assumption there is, then we must keep searching.  Tell me, without invoking supernatural creation, as the supernatural is not science, how do we appear to have arrived on Earth?  Because I can tell you that we don't see stars forming supernaturally.  We see hydrogen clouds collapsing into protostars.  So why would we assume our star was specially created?  We see heavier elements cast out by supernovae, so why would we assume Earth was specially created?  We see that life is made of the same basic stuff as non-life, so why would we assume life cannot arise from it (heck, we even know it does, as you wouldn't call individual amino acids "alive", or individual proteins, and all these blocks are assembled, by cells, into new cells)?  We see so many similarities, which you have yet to address, when just honestly comparing different groups of life forms.  The similarities are visible to anyone who dares to look!  And by your own logic, at the very least, we share an ancestor with chimps, because he have more in common with them genetically than dogs do with coyotes and zebras do with horses.  You ignore the fact that there is no hard line in the fossil record, that there is no evolutionary wall.  We can demonstrate small changes in life forms over successive generations, and all you can do is claim that they can't change enough.

I think the point being made is the idea that evolution is synonymous with mutation (another function of mainstream science).  Likewise, we see evolution being defined through this process where others would see adaptation.

Adaptation does not occur over successive generations.  That is evolution.  Adaptation, if this is what it means to you, is synonymous to evolution.  To the rest of us, adaptation means when we do more work, we get larger muscles, and when we handle rougher materials, we get rougher hands.  Even neoteny, whereby organisms remain in more juvenile forms to suit their environment, is adaptation (and it can actually lead to evolution, too, when the more advanced form is no longer utilized and the genes it utilizes are mutated).  Organisms adapt, generations evolve.  If using less oxygen were an adaptation, then one would expect these bacteria to adapt to their new environment very fast.  If the adaptation could only happen during a certain part of the organism's life, then you would expect to see it no later than the second generation.  This was generation 30,000+, yes?  Again, your use of adaptation as a fuzzy word shows you must admit evolution is happening, you just do not like its full implications, and seek to define limits where there are none, given the time.

The definition of evolution is being blurred. By applying the definition to the every day occurrences and some rare occurrence that do happen, you automatically assume that all forms of evolution must therefor be true.  Which is simply not the case.

See the above...

Adaptation is consistent with the creator model.

Yup, sure is.  It doesn't require any new genetic information, in fact, adaptation demands there be no change in the genetic information, lest it be evolution if the genetic aberration is observed over generations, the changes being disseminated through a population, or at least a beneficial mutation (a component most creationists claim cannot happen) in the individual.  Oh, yeah, and if that beneficial mutation is transfered on, it's EVOLUTION, BABY!

Mutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world.8 Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect.
Given the selective pressure exerted by the media of a limited carbon source (glucose) but abundant alternative carbon source (citrate), the cells with slightly beneficial mutations would be selected for and increase in the population. Alternatively, if the mutational effects were neutral the cells with these mutations might remain in the population just by chance, since they would not be selected for or against. Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering currently existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment. Further understanding of Lenski’s research is valuable for development of a creation model for adaptation of bacterial populations in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world.

See, this is an amazing example of "say it ain't so" word-play.  The redeeming feature (to creationist) is claiming that God meant for them to unlock a new feature via mutation, and that subsequent generations inherited it.  But minus the supernatural intent, this is exactly what evolution is, with the addenum of it being under selective pressure.  Let us even give you the supposed high ground here, and say the bacteria lost something via this mutation, so it wasn't strictly beneficial.  Let's say it happened in otherwise important DNA, rather than a duplicated or junk bit, and maybe the bacteria is now vulnerable down the line to something else.  Is it still evolution?  YES.  There is no requirement that only totally advantageous changes take place, only that changes take place.  Natural selection will sort the viable from the unviable, and over time, you will see differentiation.  You, again, are left hoping that things can't change too much over time, when we know that they can via the same reasoning that tells us Sedna orbits the sun, despite us never seeing it go all the way.  We haven't seen a microorganism evolve into a hominid, but we don't have to, as we've seen the smaller changes take place and we know that with an infinite amount of smaller changes you will achieve an infinite amount of variation.  Obviously there has only been finite time for finite changes, but we know mutation rates and we have the fossil record, and it meshes.

What is ultimately being implied is that the nothing is gained on a genetic level. Do you agree or disagree that their is incredibly more information in human DNA as opposed to that of a bacteria.  So the question becomes, where did human information come from.

Even if nothing was gained on a genetic level this time, tell me what prevents small changes from eventually yielding a human genome.  I'm not asking you for the odds, as we are exactly as unlikely to have our exact genetic structure as a crocodile is theirs, and yet we exist.  I'm asking you what prevents adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine from changing in their ordering enough.  Now remember that there is nothing to prevent mutation to a duplicated gene, nothing to prevent viable frame shift.  "Information," even in the plain-wrong-creationist sense of the word, can and is easily gained through mutation and natural selection.  You have no method for preventing the genetic progression from microbe to man except to claim that no viable forms would be yielded by intermediary DNA, and since intermediary DNA is literally any viable path of mutations and selection resulting in humans, you know this isn't the case.

The E-Coli, based on the observation that it utilized Cit+, may not be proof that it added new genetic information (as implied, the genes have not been mapped yet)   Since we know that E-Coli already has the ability to utilize Cit+ at lower oxygen levels, this could simply be an example of adaptation.  Again, the mapping of the genetic code would be a perfect way to verify which one it is. But I am leaning towards adaptation. ;-)

Something changed in its genes.  This change was passed on.  It doesn't matter if this change didn't add new information, what matters is that it could have added new information, and the mechanism, mutation, is how it happened.  Again, you use that word, adaptation, wrongly, and as a synonym, whether you realize it or not, for evolution.  This is not adaptation -- in the sense of there being no genetic change, but an environmental response by the individual organism -- as you would hope the word might, fallaciously, imply.  A mutation, whether it adds genetic material, pares it down, provides benefit or not, is still a mechanism of evolution, and when that change is passed down and selected for, the population is said to have evolved.  Penguins can't fly, a disadvantage in many ways.  Does that mean they didn't evolve, or "de-evolved"?  NO.  You can lean towards your "not a totally beneficial 'adaptation'" all you want, but it is evolution that is described here.  That is, you are describing evolution, and then mentally limiting it to just a small set of possibilities in the face of reality.  Duplications happen.  Mutate a duplication and you've added information.  Change enough of the same basic stuff we're all made of, and you can develop any viable life form over time for a given environment.  I've explained to you the mechanisms, it's time to face them.

Ill have to come back to this point, but this never was not an invention of creationist, but was propaganda by the old evolution community through media to enforce the idea that we evolved from "lower orders of life."   The premise has not changed, just the idea that there are higher levels of organism has. Or has it?

Let's say is was "the old evolution community" that gave rise to it, that doesn't even mean the scientists by necessity.  But let's say it does.  Does a flawed description of one aspect, or a bad choice of wording, invalidate all others?  I like how you claim this propaganda.  Does that mean that whenever science updates, you claim they were just trying to cover the hole in their religion, as if they were apologeticists?  All new science is propaganda, then.  No wonder why creationists are so disinclined to accept any new evidence in favor of evolution or the standard cosmological model.  No wonder they've been trying desperately to claim scientists got it wrong in every field from astronomy to morphology ever since they started disliking the implications.  They think it is all apologetics, maybe all a conspiracy.  Some doubt the scientists are able to properly interpret the evidence, thinking themselves and their myth more fit, and others think even the evidence is made up to fool us.  If you are unwilling to honestly review the science with me, under the suspicion it is all lies, then this post has been 30 minutes of fluff that I wrote for no good reason.  I'm not here to debate with you.  There is no debate.  I'm trying to tell you the truth.

[curiosityandthecat]

Ooo, red text.  

[Man-ofGod]

This is a little OT, hope the mod does not mind.

Just want to say I appreciate the discussion.  I know how frustrating it can be to get through a creationist thick skull;-)  
So to lighten the mood, hopefully just  a little, Ill post a joke I ran across.  I apologize in advance if its corny or if you seen it already, or both:)

A young technician and his general manager board a train headed through the mountains on its way to Kansas. They can find no place to sit except for two seats right across the aisle from a young woman and her grandmother.

After a while, it’s obvious that the young woman and the young tech are interested in each because of the looks they’re giving each other. Soon the train passes into a tunnel and it goes pitch black. There is a sound of the smack of a kiss followed by the sound of a slap. When the train emerges from the tunnel, the four sit there in silence without saying a word.

The grandmother is thinking to herself: “It was very brash for that young man to kiss my granddaughter, but I’m glad she slapped him.” The General manager is thinking: “I didn’t know the young tech was brave enough to kiss that girl, but I sure wish she hadn’t missed him when she slapped and hit me!” The young woman was sitting there thinking: “I’m glad he kissed me, but I wish my grandmother had not slapped him!” The young tech sat there with a satisfied smile on his face. He thought to himself: “Life is good. How often does a guy have the chance to kiss a beautiful girl and slap his general manager all at the same time!

[joeactor]

This is a little OT, hope the mod does not mind.

OT, but I don't mind... funny joke!

... we now return to your regularly scheduled back and forth conversation (already in progress) ...

[VanReal]

No. Not at all what I am saying. I am saying that a geologist who has an evolution mindset, will explain an event found in the rocks in the following order,

Does it fit in evolution hypothesis? lets assume in the example the answer is no. Well if your a believer, then you overlook that minor defect in your thinking and figure a way to make a fit.

No, this is how the creationist works things out in his/her mind.  How do I make this evidence fit into what the bible tells us?  

A thought coming to mind is the initial carbon dating from the jesus shroud.  It was found to be very young and not old enough to be really the shroud of jesus.  The discovery was then made that there was a specific time period of weaving done in the area of the shroud where their sample was taken.  It was most likely a repair made (the shroud has been fire damaged etc) at a later time period hence the date error in the original carbon dating sampling.  The church has other samples from different parts of the shroud that were taken, but they won't fork them over to the scientists to carbon date.  Here, the scientists are following the evidence and have admitted the initial error.

Geologists did not make up the fossil findings and sedimentary layers that are discovered through their studies.  It is what it is.  If they found a dinosaur in a layer dating from 1000 years ago they would say so and it would be astonishing!

When are you going to stop thinking that the scientific community is purposely making up evidence in order to continue an proveably untrue theory?  There would be no purpose to do that, if another more accurate theory emerged you would not see mass rioting because of the thwarting of evolution.

[Man-ofGod]

No, this is how the creationist works things out in his/her mind.  How do I make this evidence fit into what the bible tells us?  

I do not doubt that this is how creationist work.  Creationist do not deny this.  Evolutionist, however, are not honest about it.  

A thought coming to mind is the initial carbon dating from the jesus shroud.  It was found to be very young and not old enough to be really the shroud of jesus.  The discovery was then made that there was a specific time period of weaving done in the area of the shroud where their sample was taken.  It was most likely a repair made (the shroud has been fire damaged etc) at a later time period hence the date error in the original carbon dating sampling.  The church has other samples from different parts of the shroud that were taken, but they won't fork them over to the scientists to carbon date.  Here, the scientists are following the evidence and have admitted the initial error.

The shroud is a bunch of hoopla, and I do not subscribe, and never subscribe to nonsense like that.

Geologists did not make up the fossil findings and sedimentary layers that are discovered through their studies.  It is what it is.  If they found a dinosaur in a layer dating from 1000 years ago they would say so and it would be astonishing!

Explain to me how layers are dated?

When are you going to stop thinking that the scientific community is purposely making up evidence in order to continue an proveably untrue theory?  There would be no purpose to do that, if another more accurate theory emerged you would not see mass rioting because of the thwarting of evolution.

No, when are you going to understand what I been trying to say from the beginning?  I never said anyone was "making up evidence." No, what I am saying is the hypothesis always made is that w/ an evolutionary mind set.

"Evolution did it!"

As long as it does not pass the scientific method, is always going to be just a hypothesis, not a theory. Truth not many are willing to accept.

[PipeBox]

~

[VanReal]

I do not doubt that this is how creationist work.  Creationist do not deny this.  Evolutionist, however, are not honest about it.  

Ah, the evil dishonest scientists argument.  Ah, the evil dishonest scientists argument.  Ah, the evil dishonest scientists argument.  Oh, yikes, I am repeating myself.  It must be contagious.

The shroud is a bunch of hoopla, and I do not subscribe, and never subscribe to nonsense like that.

Avoided my point entirely.  What you subscribe to is not important, the point is that scientists follow the evidence regardless of where it may lead.  There have been several examples of that on this thread and you continue to ignore it.

Explain to me how layers are dated?

Thank goodness Pipeboxdid that for me, although I fear his time and effort will be written of as "hoopla" as well.

No, when are you going to understand what I been trying to say from the beginning?  I never said anyone was "making up evidence." No, what I am saying is the hypothesis always made is that w/ an evolutionary mind set.

"Evolution did it!"

As long as it does not pass the scientific method, is always going to be just a hypothesis, not a theory. Truth not many are willing to accept.

Yes you did, you said that the evidence they tout is garbage, several times, and that they will turn evidence to the contrary into a false supporting of evolution.  Not only that but that when evidence proves evolution wrong that they brush it under the carpet, step on it, and set it on fire.  That they pray to the holy creator of the hypothesis of evolution and that they do nothing but run around thinking of evolution and providing faulty evidence for the sheer reason to support it. And, that they are all so loyal and dishonest that true science has died because of this evil evolution and the evolutionist.

[jim666]

By attempting to debunk evolution, scientific discoveries etc. the religious devotees are curiously also denying their own gods abilities.
An almighty God wouldn't have a problem with scientific discoveries, he would just claim them as his own (including Evolution). So by denying this they are not only denying their own Gods powers and just how he did it.  According to the God mob he told 'man' what to write down in the scriptures etc. are they really saying ' that's it then', so why all the debate throughout the centuries or are they saying their god didn't make it clear enough and had to figure it out for them selves. Again they are not only limiting their own gods abilities they are trying to tell the rest of us that they and they alone are able to interpret what their god meant.
The bottom line is, that it is their God and they can and do decide on his powers and abilities who he speaks to and who he helps. The God lot even try to convince us that they are gods chosen ones that he talks to them and them alone and we must obey and believe them OR ELSE. Then you have the God bunch that think they are God.
As the vast majority of the population on board this planet don't believe in your god on a stick thing, just stick to your religious mumblings and leave the rest of us to try and figure out just why and what process created the universe and all it contains.
 Religion as a theory debunked itself long ago.

[Man-ofGod]

For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/

[McQ]

For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/

How about answering the direct questions instead of simply linking to a creationist site that has all of the arguments we already know? When will you understand that we know this stuff? I, and others here, know these viewpoints. Probably better than you do, based on your arguments here. Why do you fail to understand that some of us have been where you are now? Is that so hard to believe or grasp? So why don't you start being honest and try to see a viewpoint different from your own?

You've continued to ignore relevant questions posed to you, and ignore evidence presented to you, MOG. That borders on trolling. If you want to discuss topics, then do so, but if you are going to continue to ignore other members' posts, that will be a problem. If you do not wish to have meaningful discussions or debate, then this forum may not be the appropriate place for you to post. Totally up to you how you proceed. We welcome honest and open debate.

Edited to add: Looks like the site is very similar to other sites I've seen and probably run by Seventh Day Adventists. Also, what MOG didn't mention is that you have to pay a fee to see the "Amazing Discoveries" in it. MOG's post of this link is pretty much just an ad for that site. Big no-no. there, MOG. That's a strike.

[Man-ofGod]

For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/

How about answering the direct questions instead of simply linking to a creationist site that has all of the arguments we already know? When will you understand that we know this stuff? I, and others here, know these viewpoints. Probably better than you do, based on your arguments here. Why do you fail to understand that some of us have been where you are now? Is that so hard to believe or grasp? So why don't you start being honest and try to see a viewpoint different from your own?

You've continued to ignore relevant questions posed to you, and ignore evidence presented to you, MOG. That borders on trolling. If you want to discuss topics, then do so, but if you are going to continue to ignore other members' posts, that will be a problem. If you do not wish to have meaningful discussions or debate, then this forum may not be the appropriate place for you to post. Totally up to you how you proceed. We welcome honest and open debate.

Edited to add: Looks like the site is very similar to other sites I've seen and probably run by Seventh Day Adventists. Also, what MOG didn't mention is that you have to pay a fee to see the "Amazing Discoveries" in it. MOG's post of this link is pretty much just an ad for that site. Big no-no. there, MOG. That's a strike.

I had a more emotional response to this post that I decided to delete.

I am sorry you felt like I was trolling, their is a lot of post here and it really is tiresome to try to answer every single one.  I do not want posting here to be my second job, just a hobby and hopefully fruitful discussion.  

The link I can assure you is not advertisement as I have no affiliation with that site. Sorry that you got that impression.  Hopefully you can be comforted with the fact that I would not post a link to a Christian site to raise money on an Atheist forum.  Not a good strategy from a marketing perspective.  I think you will find the video I posted is with in the context with the discussion and is free, and I encourage people to watch it so that they can open their mind. Its not enough to say you have an open mind, you have to put it into practice.  

Finally, do not assume you already been where I been.  You know little about me.

[Tom62]

I had a more emotional response to this post that I decided to delete.

I am sorry you felt like I was trolling, their is a lot of post here and it really is tiresome to try to answer every single one.  I do not want posting here to be my second job, just a hobby and hopefully fruitful discussion.

The Bible does have a very good allegory, which explains exactly what has happened to you over here.

Hosea  8:7  For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.

Your problem also reminded me about the Chinese saying

Beware what you wish for, you may get it.

You wished for a discussion, and, boy oh boy, you sure got it.  

[PipeBox]

MOG, is this video not mirrored elsewhere?  I mean, if it's really that convincing a message, and especially if it can answer for all my posts, then you'd think it'd be freely distributed and all over the web.