THE GREAT FAITH OF THE EVOLUTIONIST

[Whitney]

Perspective, you cannot create additional threads of the same topic.  I have merged your new thread with this one.

[BadPoison]

Alot of words, not really convincing.

 

So, will you at least step up to the plate and play with this horrible salesman?  If you were trying to find evidence evolution happened, what would you look for?

Oooh, sounds like a new topic!

Too bad we only have one 'intelligent design-ist' (currently it seems)

Perspective please visit this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3477

[Whitney]

Alot of words, not really convincing.

Perspective, if you respond in that manner again to someone who has taken their valuable time to respond to your posts you will get your third warning.  Maybe you are just to ignorant or uncaring to realize how inconsiderate that was...which is why you didn't get that third warning this time.

If you don't want to respond to something in a well thought out manner (or at least as well thought out as you are able)...don't post at all.

[Tanker]

perspective you still seem to be under the mistaken asumption that the theroy of evolution has anything to do with how life started. While in related fields (biology) proving or disproving one hs no effect on the other. Let me give an example using math.

2x7=14 is in the same field as Pi = 3.14 (math), answering one or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

Lets say the "therory" of 2x7 (evolution) said the answer was 12. This is wrong and it gets proved wrong. Pi (abiogenisis) still equals 3.14 regardless of what 2x7 equals and has nothing to do with 2x7 despite them being in the same field.

To reiterate the therory of evolution while in a related field has little to do with the origin of life except they are in related field.

So you are willing to say that if the Christian God was proved 100% to exist by science that it would not BY NECESSITY disprove evolution? OR if they proved 100% by science that life CAN form spontanteously that it would not BY NECESSITY prove evolution? You see evolution hinges on the fact that God DOES NOT exist. In the same way, evolution hinges on the fact that life CAN form by natural processes. If you really think you can answer the first two questions "NO" then you must give a substantial explanation. I can assure one does not exist.

Evolution is not predicated on how life started either by natural means or devine in fact the is also the theroy of guided evolution ie; that a god created life and as a god sees a need for change in an animal to survive, he adapts them. Again though as I originaly stipulated If science proved 100% that life could start "spontaneously" that would ONLY be proof that life started "spontaneously". Darwinian Evolution is simply 1 therory, at this time the most probable, to explain the fact of evolution.

Try this as an example:
Lets say you are adopted. You have no idea who your parents were, Where you were born, or of your origins (how life started). That in no way effects how heavy you will grow. Your eventual weight is not really predicated on you unknown parents genes it also has to with you diet, environment, possible diseases, exercise, vitamin intake, ect. (evolution).

(I'm sorry this isen't really suscinct I've been awake for over 30 hours and my brain isn't working full speed right now)

[Squid]

If I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense. Tell me sir please, how can you believe in evolution and not out of necessity deal with life origins. Educate me where the two disconect. Educate me please why in every museam across this country evolution theory is taught right along side the naturalistic module of life origins. You are trying to seperate the two so you do not have to answer for one to believe the other. This is nothing more then a dodge. Evolution by necessity has direct and profound implications about the origin of life. You are forcing the disconect when it is absolutely illogical to do so. However, because you are forcing the issue, it just shows that I am right. You are being illogical because you have to be.

Follow me here, BY DEFINITION, evolution does not deal with the origins of life itself, that lays outside of it's theoretical framework - it deals with life ONLY.  It's not about telling a story or some equally fallacious analogy it is about a theoretical framework which explains natural phenomena.

Life's origins is a problem for pre-biotic chemistry not evolutionary theory.  As far as the theory of evolution is concerned it doesn't matter how life appeared.  Again, why do you so vehemently attack a biological theory when you don't really know much about it?  How can you condemn mechanisms within a theory without learning about them first?  I never understood that.

Here's the definition for ya:

evolution: the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next. (Audesirk et al.*, 2002 pp. G-9)

*Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. & Byers, B. (2002).  Biology: Life on Earth. (6th ed.).  Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

[Sophus]

So you are now conceding that because their is no current proof that life can form by naturalistic means that you accept that there is no God by faith. Which means you have no basis besides pure subjective preference by which you have said, "There is no God." If you are not saying this, then provide proof that life can form by naturalistic means. There is none. So by the definition of faith this is all you have to go by to claim there is no God. I am so glad I finally helped you see this.

Umm.... huh? I'm not expecting you to suddenly accept evolution and no longer believe in your god so I am trying to relate to you. I'm meeting you all the way and trying to see things from your perspective. Make no mistake I do not believe in any sort of a creator. I am merely saying evolution is compatible with your belief in God. Don't think that you cannot have faith and an understanding of evolution.

Perspective, are you so arrogantly claiming to have a better understanding of evolution, it's claims, and the evidence than every Biologist or member of the scientific community who accepts it? How much time have you spent studying this? Did you ever once look at it with an open mind?

Again, I want you to go here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3286

[Recusant]

First, you are still not understanding. The article DOES NOT neccesitate proof. ONLY that the module does not violate laws of nature. IT DOESN'T. There are many examples in the the evolution module that a hypothesis is formulated to explain something of which there is NO physical evidence. (i.e. many many transitional forms) So are you saying that you are willing to give up evolution because there is NOT evidence to support many of the hypothesis within the module. You point out the examples where the module violates physical law. You can't just make that claim. Prove it. This was a peer reviewed article. Please show the errors that "you so easily found." It is evolution that is required to reconcile the evidence to fit the module. No thanks to you.

I'm sure this paper was peer reviewed.  Unfortunately the peers of the authors are their fellow creationists.

1) "The ark is clearly a miraculous
singularity (Gen 7:8ff), and all elements of it may properly be attributed to the
miracle without harm to the model in general." (page 110)

As I stated when I first began reading this article, the authors start out by invoking a supernatural agent to deal with any questions about the physical nature of the vessel and it's contents.  This is not a scientific paradigm.  Miracles by definition are violations of physical/scientific law.  They may think that they can just wave their arms and say "this miraculous quality does not make our model invalid," but they're wrong.  I could cite just this one sentence and be done with their hogwash, but in the interest of honest inquiry, I'll continue.

2) "Temperate thermal stability and year-round fruiting suggest that the pre-flood
world had no seasons. This would have only been possible with a near-vertical
axis of rotation of the earth, so that days and nights were of near-equal length
year-round." (page 111)

There is absolutely no evidence that the Earth has had a vertical axis at any time since life began on this planet.
The only planets in the solar system with a near vertical axis are Mercury and Jupiter. Mercury's is a result of it's proximity to the Sun. I'm not sure, but I think Jupiter's is a result of its huge mass and rapid rotation.  In both cases, there is a physical reason why the axis is stable in a vertical position.  Neither of them pertain to Earth, and though I'm not an astrophysicist, I would guess that it would be very unlikely for Earth to have had a vertical spin axis since very early days previous to the formation of the Moon. In fact, there is some evidence that around 800 million years ago, the Earth actually was tilted even farther from the vertical than it is now.

3) "There were no substantial high mountains in the ante-diluvian world." (page 112)

This is contrary to the geological record, which shows mountains having existed on this planet for as far back as we can see. (Millions of years.)  For their hypothesis to be true, the physical laws governing the formation and destruction of mountains (as evidenced in the geological record) would have to be repealed.  By the act of a god, I'm assuming.

4) "Vardiman notes that 'In the pre-flood
atmosphere the inversion would have been very strong and the pole-to-equator
temperature difference would have been very small, resulting in light winds, no
storms, and no rain!' This is exactly the situation found on the planet Venus,
where a permanent cloud cover is present with very stable temperatures below
the clouds pole-to-pole, and virtually no wind. Above the clouds conditions
vary wildly from day to night with high winds and large temperature variations." (page 114-115)

This one sticks out.  For one thing, sure the temperature on Venus is very stable; it averages around 864°F!  This is a direct result of the permanent cloud cover which is a basic element of the "scientific paradigm" of this paper. For life as we know it to exist in those conditions would certainly violate several physical laws.  

5) "...rain was not present in the ante-diluvian world." (page 117)

To have world encircling unbroken cloud cover and no rain at all sounds to me like a physical impossibility, but what the heck, when you have a god manipulating reality for you, no worries, right?  (Not really a scientific approach, however.)

6) "...because there probably was no high terrain before the flood,
volcanoes are very unlikely to have existed then. Second, because volcanoes
create a hot spot on the surface and a cool region in the area of the ash plume,
they would cause vertical mixing of the atmosphere. This would be expected to
disrupt the temperature inversion, and potentially would destroy the Edenic
climate. We therefore conclude that volcanoes came into existence at the
flood, as will be discussed.
One other feature of the lack of volcanism bears on the upper atmospheric
conditions discussed earlier. The protective ozone layer in the stratosphere is
broken down by chlorine from chlorofluorocarbons. With no manufactured
CFCs, the only natural source of chlorine would be volcanic. But with no
volcanoes to release chlorine into the atmosphere, the ozone layer would be
much thicker and far more able to block harmful ultraviolet radiation than at
present." (page 118)

Volcanism is recorded in the geological record, once again, as far back as we can see.  Geologists see evidence of ancient volcanoes, but they are mistaken.  Oh well.  
Ozone only blocks a certain portion of infrared (heat) radiation, and not even all of that, so it's not as if this hypothesized thick ozone layer will counter the effects of the thick cloud cover (see temperature of Venus, above) which is another essential element of their "paradigm."

7) "But examination of Mars shows that floods sufficient to cover the entire surface of
that planet to an aggregate depth of 46 meters have occurred, derived from
subterranean aquifers."  (page 126)

This is absurdly out of context.* 46 meters over 2 billion years results in .000000023 meters per year.  Hardly a catastrophic flood.

*" Most of this water was released in the first 2 billion years of martian history."
from: Release of Juvenile Water on Mars: Estimated Amounts and Timing Associated with Volcanism
by RONALD GREELEY

"Massive vertical movements of crust
accompanied the runaway subduction of the flood. This allowed the midocean
ridge to be above sea level. At the edges of the ridge, seawater would be
vaporized, leading to strong vertical movement of air." (page 129)

No record of mid-ocean ridges ever being above sea level.  The time scale for these events was millions of years, not less than a year, as in this model.

9)"If God rapidly expanded the universe at the time of the flood, this
extra heat could have simply vanished." (page 130)

Science?  No, science does not use gods to explain events.  

10) When the Australian “bridge” flooded, it isolated the
animals living there, leaving no way for them to return to the rest of the world.
While those types may have lived in other areas at one time, various natural
forces such as predation and competition appear to have left Australia as the
sole remaining habitat for kangaroos and their similarly unique neighbors. (page 132)

There was a "land bridge" between Australia and New Guinea, but none between Australia and Asia.

11) "All pre-flood terrestrial
life was destroyed by the flood (Gen 7:21â€"22), and much was converted into
the coal and oil we now recover as 'fossil fuels.'" (page 132)

Coal and oil take millions of years to form, not a few thousand.  This fact is a result of physical law. I think it's obvious to any but the blind that that does not matter to the authors, however.

12) "Three reported older specimens
show standard radiocarbon ages for various parts of single animals that vary
from 2,700 to 14,000 years.104 This wide variance in 14C levels in a single
animal is consistent with the flood schema, but not with uniformitarian
expectations." (page 133)

This is a plain distortion of fact.  A lie, lifted directly from that infamous distorter of the truth, Hovind. To quote Karen E. Bartelt PhD:
 " I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled 'Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska'. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950's and 60's. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); 'flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius' (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the 'skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius [baby mammoth]' (found by Geist in 1948 'with a beaver dam'). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed "baby", and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale,  Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said."

There is more, but that last one really did it for me.  The peers that reviewed this article were fellow liars.

If your bird-dinosaur thread is ever unlocked, I have some things to say in regard to that, as well.  Not that I expect any positive result.

Have fun.

[JillSwift]

Curiosity already gave this a solid smacking, but I can not resist:

First, you need to state the actual theory of creation, which you have failed to do - making it impossible to know if any of your statements is a test of that theory.

- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.

Where is the evidence of a flood? Other geological processes explain those without the need to add an entity - you're violating the law of parsimony.

- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.
        Side note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO

What uniformity? Do you mean that physical laws apply throughout the universe? If so, how do you know?
Alos, why do you say we can't explain where those physical laws came from? String theory and M theory do a fine job of explaining that, as does cosmology and current "big bang" theory. Again, by positing a god, you violate parsimony.

- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.

Universal moral code? No such thing. There is incredible variety of social mores on treatment of food animals, treatment of pets, treatment of neighbors, treatment of criminals, treatment of women, etc. etc.

- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.

This is pure conjecture.  

- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.

This is only true if you completely ignore the fossil record, DNA evidence, and the speciation of bacteria and amoeba in lab experiments.

- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5

More conjecture. You didn't even define "stretched out", leaving the conclusion vague at best. Mind you that "universal expansion" is a simplified phrase, the math describing it is far more complex. This is an argument from ignorance.

- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)

What cave drawings are you referring to? Leviathan was never described except as large - not all dinosaurs were large.

- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)

You're referring to a hoax, hon.

These are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

How unfortunate. Try again, this time state what the theory of creationism actually is, what predictions it makes, and how those predictions were actually tested. By the looks of your list above, you went in the opposite direction - that is, had conclusions then sought evidence to fit and called it testing, as opposed to the proper method which is to look at evidence then come to a conclusion, then test those conclusions.

It's also a good idea to face the tested predictions of the theory of evolution by natural selection and answer them, rather than simply ignore them.

[Whitney]

If your bird-dinosaur thread is ever unlocked, I have some things to say in regard to that, as well.  Not that I expect any positive result.

Let me know in about a week if you still want to respond to that thread.  I feel unlocking it now would just cause Perspective further distractions.

[McQ]

So much gibberish, so little desire to respond to it all. When confronted with facts, some people just lie. Even so-called christians.

This is a good one: Something about no winds on Venus, I think it was, from Noel and Noel and perspective.

I know he won't bother reading it, but:  

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measu ... s_999.html

[karadan]

So much gibberish, so little desire to respond to it all. When confronted with facts, some people just lie. Even so-called christians.

This is a good one: Something about no winds on Venus, I think it was, from Noel and Noel and perspective.

I know he won't bother reading it, but:  

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Measu ... s_999.html

Thanks for that article, Will. That was very interesting.

[karadan]

I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

Really.. you think my claim that life has not been shown to form spontaneously is, "ludicrous, spurious, and an inslut to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity." Please dig yourslef out of this hole by producing evidence to the contrary.
  :idea: ......... :|

OK. You are delusional. End of story. Find yourself some psychological help because you are showing signs of serious mental impairment. Debating with you is as futile as playing golf with a bowling ball. It depresses me that there are people like you walking around, completely ignorant of reality and hateful of anything which differs to your narrow and paranoid world view. You represent a dangerous and backward section of society hell-bent on the erosion of anything good and peaceful in this world. Why could you possibly want to live in the dark ages again? How screwed up must you be to actually want that?

Please, just go away. There are good people here who want no part of your vile and spiteful insanity.

[ryan-blues]

perspective wrote:- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)

Please tell me you are not referring to the hugely discredited findings of Ron Wyatt and his ilk?

[perspective]

First, I don't like you telling me what I believe based on your opinion. Just because you are incapable of dreaming up an explanation besides the two you presented, does not mean that there are only two options. Also, I'm not sure why you put "random" with your ill-described natural process. What about life forming from inorganic material has to be random? Thirdly, am I correct in understanding that since you believe there is not a current explanation that is as observable and testable as newton's law of motion, god must be the only alternative? You find God being a cause an easier and more logical description of reality than simply stating "we haven't figured it all out yet?"

-BP

EDIT: I shouldn't have assumed you find any of Newton's theories on physics credible. Perhaps you are like Aristotle, and see objects having a natural state of rest (Though I am sure I will regret comparing you to the genius Aristotle.)

If you haven't figured out how life can form spontaneously, then you accept that it happened by faith. You atheists hate the "F" word don't you. Unfortunatley, it is all you have to go by. Oh, and please explain the other options of how life was formed. I would love to hear all your unfounded stories.

[perspective]

I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

Really.. you think my claim that life has not been shown to form spontaneously is, "ludicrous, spurious, and an inslut to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity." Please dig yourslef out of this hole by producing evidence to the contrary.
  :idea: ......... :|

OK. You are delusional. End of story. Find yourself some psychological help because you are showing signs of serious mental impairment. Debating with you is as futile as playing golf with a bowling ball. It depresses me that there are people like you walking around, completely ignorant of reality and hateful of anything which differs to your narrow and paranoid world view. You represent a dangerous and backward section of society hell-bent on the erosion of anything good and peaceful in this world. Why could you possibly want to live in the dark ages again? How screwed up must you be to actually want that?

Please, just go away. There are good people here who want no part of your vile and spiteful insanity.

In other words, I can't dispute what this Christian is saying so Im going to restore to third grade name calling. This really isn't productive arguing. Besides, if I went away who would you argue with. The fact is, Im starting to get on everyones nerves because I have logically made my point. Atheism is based on faith and therefore rightly classfied as a relgion. A really dogmatic one at that.