Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/9/14 at 11:42 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 4/9/14 at 11:42 am to OMLandshark
quote:Not sure how to respond to this one other than I never really asked why a dog can't produce a cat. I understand why it doesn't work that way. I was making a different point that was either lost on you or poorly communicated by me (probably the latter).
Do you not realize how stupid you sound? Your comprehension of evolution is laughable. If you want to know why scientists laugh at you, this quote is pretty much it. If you remotely understood evolution, you would never ask why a dog can't produce a cat.
0
Posted on 4/9/14 at 11:44 am to Ross
quote:There are some common stock answers to both of those issues that do not require me or anyone else to "give up on physics". But I don't want to get bogged down in yet another tangent.
You'd give up on physics because radiometric dating becomes unusable and you have no explanation why it all of the sudden stops working past 6000 years, when we know for a fact that it is the most reliable dating method there is. You'd give up on Physics because the speed of light and all of relativistic mechanics can not possibly be true because the light reaching this planet is far older than a mere 6000 years.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 11:50 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:Dating of texts has nothing to do with biological or chemical dating. Conflating the issues doesn't make you appear any smarter.
No you're right, dating has nothing to do with evolution -- especially regarding theories of a younger Earth. Totally right, dude.
quote:
you're getting your scholarly articles from Christian apologetic sites
No. I'm getting my arguments from having a little education in textual criticism, a degree in Classics and an MA in New Testament. You're getting your arguments from a Google search.
quote:
historicity
You could've stated current Biblical scholarship accurately and I wouldn't have argued a bit. There's quite a few scholars who propose and support the ideas you've adopted without understanding. There's also quite a few who have argued for early dates for the Gospels and done so compellingly. J.A.T. Robinson's "Redating the New Testament" is a great read on the subject. (It should be noted Robinson was the furthest thing from a fundamentalist or conservative.)
I find it telling that the bit you copy/pasted isn't even nearly as certain as you are for the dating, never mind the fact it presents almost no rationale for its conclusions.
When you start to get into the actual reasons, the late dating of Matthew is a house of cards. It presupposes Q and then (in its usual form) states that because there was a Q source, there had to be a minimum of X decades between the teachings of Christ and the development of Q. Therefore, because we "know" Matthew was dependent upon Q, the writing of Matthew cannot be any closer to the time of Christ than X decades. And what if there was no Q source? Welp. Not really sure.
Likewise, any passage which predicts the fall of Jerusalem is assumed by textual critics to post date the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70). If that sounds stupid, it's only because it is.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 11:52 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 11:55 am to Kentucker
/obligatory
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:02 pm to jackmanusc
Did antibiotic-resistant bacteria predate antibiotics?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
the808bass
quote:
MA in New Testament
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:28 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:Thank you for the refresher but not sure where you were going with it. I understand speciation. I accept that new species come about through genetic mutations (loss of information of change of existing information) and natural selection. What I don't understand is how changing or losing genetic information (not adding, that we can observe) somehow adds complexity to life.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or "cladogenesis," as opposed to "anagenesis" or "phyletic evolution" occurring within lineages.[1][2]
Observed instances
Sure, I can see where changes and losses to genetic information may result in a beneficial change to the organism overall in regards to ability to survive and adapt to its environment, but not in increasing the complexity from a bacterium to a bird.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:58 pm to the808bass
quote:
Dating of texts has nothing to do with biological or chemical dating. Conflating the issues doesn't make you appear any smarter.
That that soared over your head lends credence enough.
quote:
No. I'm getting my arguments from having a little education in textual criticism, a degree in Classics and an MA in New Testament. You're getting your arguments from a Google search.
Google Search that's quoting people who have more education than you do and whose lives are dedicated to historicity.
Silly that you discredit them but I clearly have to take you seriously.
quote:
Likewise, any passage which predicts the fall of Jerusalem is assumed by textual critics to post date the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70). If that sounds stupid, it's only because it is.
What you meant is: Why did the source not mention that the fall of Jerusalem when it was predicted -- again I'm reading this off of an Apologist website. My answer to that is: Because the author is anonymous and we have no idea where he lived or if he even heard of this happening.
The author of Matthew wrote for a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria (Antioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third-largest in the empire, is often mentioned).[23]
"Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
Let me guess, William Lane Craig told you different?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:00 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Sure, I can see where changes and losses to genetic information may result in a beneficial change to the organism overall in regards to ability to survive and adapt to its environment, but not in increasing the complexity from a bacterium to a bird.
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.
It did not go from Bacterium to Birds.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Does DNA really show that all life came from the same source, or does it show that all life share the same building blocks arranged in different ways with more or less information (comprised of the same basic blocks)? Because those aren't the same things.
Okay, now I, too, am convinced that you know nothing about evolution. Throughout this thread you have shown a practiced ability to parrot others' words and then remold them to say, well, nothing at all. Overnight, it occurred to me that your single point is to cast doubt on the validities of evolution and, generally, upon the certainties of all science.
This is a classic tactic of the religious right. What it gets you is a puzzle for me. For a brief while, on the national stage, its heavily veiled thrust fooled enough people that an actual debate about the teaching of science occurred in many states. Those debates failed for the religious right as surely as your debate fails here.
A trained parrot can sound very intelligent. At the end of the day, however, it's in a cage because it can't think for itself.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:13 pm to NATidefan
quote:
I have no problem with religion, or believing in the existence of a God. I just don't think any of the Gods that have been presented to me by man are real. There may be a creator, but man created all the Gods we know of.
This is exactly how I feel and have felt for a long time.
I grew up in a christian church in Alabama. My parents taught me the bible but let me choose my own path. I questioned the christian God as well as other religions starting at a young age and I see no clarity in any of them.
My heart and mind do not allow me to believe in a God that I have knowledge of. I do believe in the possibility of a creator but I also believe in the world of math/science.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:38 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Okay, now I, too, am convinced that you know nothing about evolution.
I feel like this all could have been fixed by the question: What do you think evolution is?
Bacteria to birds, Jesus...er, Spaghetti Monster.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:05 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:Clearly my point went right by you.
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.
It did not go from Bacterium to Birds.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:10 pm to FooManChoo
Holy shite this thread is still going.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Again, if one species changes into another species, that is something we can observe over a pretty short amount of time. Since the classification of a species is pretty unscientific anyway. You would have to assume that A-55 and B-55 came from the same source because it was not observable. Common characteristics and similar DNA (the differences are more important than the similarities since all organisms share the common DNA building blocks) do not prove that one organism came from another (from an origins perspective).
Evolution takes the small changes we see today and extrapolates that over time. But that isn't observable. There may be evidence to show that it is plausible, but since there is no better natural explanation for it, it is assumed to be the truth of the matter.
Do you believe Dinosaurs existed? Or is the fact we can't observe them make them just a theory? If we found a complete strain of their DNA and created a Jurassic Park where you could go observe them, would they still not be real?
Your obsession with having to personally observe something for it to have been real or possible while you believe in tons of things that can't be observed AT ALL is flat out baffling to me. And then even if you can observe, you just say "well we don't know it was always that way".
I mean even if they found strains of DNA of every human ancestor and recreated them... And this one could breed with that one and that one could breed with this one and over and over until you could go from Ape-Ancestor to Human, you still wouldn't believe it. One, because the experiment would take to long for you to physically observe it... and two, you'd just say "well we don't know it was always that way."
Yet you can't believe man might have changed or made up a few stories in the Bible, even though you can't observe one single bit of anything that's in it.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:19 pm to Kentucker
quote:Not much I can say to the first part of your statement. I believe what I believe and I'm attempting to give a justification for it. Whether my beliefs are in line with others (who I am supposedly "parroting") or not is not my concern. However I could just as easily say you are simply parroting others who believe the same thing you believe. I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion, though.
Okay, now I, too, am convinced that you know nothing about evolution. Throughout this thread you have shown a practiced ability to parrot others' words and then remold them to say, well, nothing at all. Overnight, it occurred to me that your single point is to cast doubt on the validities of evolution and, generally, upon the certainties of all science.
In regards to your statement, "your single point is to cast doubt on the validities of evolution and, generally, upon the certainties of all science."
While I'm more than happy to discuss my disbelief in the view of "macro-evolution" (to "parrot" some other creationists), I have never had any intention to cast doubt on the "certainties of all science". At a more basic level, science is a tool used by humans to gain information. Since humans are involved, it's quite possible that many things we view as "certainties" are not certain at all, but only best guesses based on the information available to us. There is a lot we can know for certain, but not all things we "know" are certain, as is evidenced by the ever-changing nature of information produced through discovery.
But to say that my goal is to generally cast doubt on all science is to put words in my mouth that I have not said, nor would I say them.
quote:If you think I have failed here, then so be it. I didn't have a set purpose in this discussion other than to give my opinion about certain beliefs and express my own as best as possible. To that end, I think I have at least marginally succeeded. If you are not convinced to change your own beliefs, then you are no better or worse off than when this started, and I have neither failed nor succeeded in anything to that end since I did not endeavor to do change you. I have not been convinced to change my beliefs, so perhaps you and others have failed, but that's only if the goal was to change my beliefs.
This is a classic tactic of the religious right. What it gets you is a puzzle for me. For a brief while, on the national stage, its heavily veiled thrust fooled enough people that an actual debate about the teaching of science occurred in many states. Those debates failed for the religious right as surely as your debate fails here.
quote:I certainly can think for myself, even if you refuse to consider that possibility. Just because I believe what I have read in the Bible doesn't mean that I only believe it because I was brainwashed or forced to believe it by someone else. I read it and I believe it.
A trained parrot can sound very intelligent. At the end of the day, however, it's in a cage because it can't think for itself
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:23 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:If you are really asking me, I'll answer.
I feel like this all could have been fixed by the question: What do you think evolution is?
Bacteria to birds, Jesus...er, Spaghetti Monster.
I believe, fundamentally, that evolution is simply change.
From an "origins" perspective, evolution is discussed as the engine that has driven the change in organisms from a single-cell to the complexity of life that we see today, fueled by mutation and natural selection of a long period of time.
Personally, I believe that organisms can and do evolve over time in minor ways, but I don't believe in the evolutionary theory as it relates to the history of the origin of life on earth.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It did not go from Bacterium to Birds.
Clearly my point went right by you.
It's literally what you said.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:46 pm to NATidefan
quote:Not sure where you're going with this. I believe dinosaurs existed. I haven't said otherwise.
Do you believe Dinosaurs existed? Or is the fact we can't observe them make them just a theory? If we found a complete strain of their DNA and created a Jurassic Park where you could go observe them, would they still not be real?
Perhaps you are implying that I'm being inconsistent by insisting that I have to observe evolution (or whatever prerequisites I need to see) before I believe it while believing in other things that I can't observe, as if it is some arbitrary process without reason or thought.
If so, then I would just have to say that I don't pick and choose what I have to see and what I don't. There are certain aspects of my faith that create a logical contradiction if I accept something else that is directly contrary to those beliefs, so I really do need to see something contrary to believe it. Other things that are inconsequential to my faith, I don't necessarily care if I observe or not.
quote:I don't believe I have an obsession with needing to personally observe something for it to have been really possible.
Your obsession with having to personally observe something for it to have been real or possible while you believe in tons of things that can't be observed AT ALL is flat out baffling to me. And then even if you can observe, you just say "well we don't know it was always that way".
I haven't seen God, yet I believe He exists. But because I believe in God and that the Bible is His first-hand account, I don't believe contradictory versions of history. That doesn't mean I discount science, but that I disagree with certain conclusions from those within the scientific community who are looking for a naturalistic explanation of what I believe happened supernaturally. If I didn't believe in God or the Bible, I would have no barriers to accepting any theory that was rationally plausible about our origins, including evolutionary theory.
However, I believe in an alternative to that theory, so there is no reason for me to accept evolution as the cause for life on earth as we know it, coming from nothing but chemicals in a soup by accident.
quote:Maybe, but maybe not. That's the problem with hypotheticals is that you can come up with any scenario you want. But the fact of the matter is that we haven't done that experiment and we haven't observed "monkey-to-man" evolution (yeah, yeah, I know we didn't evolve from monkeys) so the point is pretty much moot. Whether I would accept the conclusions or not is irrelevant.
I mean even if they found strains of DNA of every human ancestor and recreated them... And this one could breed with that one and that one could breed with this one and over and over until you could go from Ape-Ancestor to Human, you still wouldn't believe it. One, because the experiment would take to long for you to physically observe it... and two, you'd just say "well we don't know it was always that way."
quote:That's right, because I have studied the Bible and believe that it is the word of God by my estimation. There's really nothing else I can say to that end. I believe that God preserved His word from being significantly impacted during transmission and copying. Whether there is a typo or not doesn't change the message.
Yet you can't believe man might have changed or made up a few stories in the Bible, even though you can't observe one single bit of anything that's in it.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 2:50 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:Of course it is, because I was making a point about the drastic changes from one organism to another explained through evolutionary origins.
It's literally what you said.
The example, in my mind, did not matter since it was the concept that I was trying to address. It's interesting that you are getting hung up on the specific words I used to convey the concept rather than focusing on the concept, itself, though. Should I have said "molecules-to-man" or "chemicals-to-cows" so that you don't get hung up on it?
Page 22 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News