The TOE doesn't address why neutrinos exist either. And that fact is just as irrelevant as it not addressing proto-life. Even though the TOE is true, you can still believe a deity created the proto-life that evolution initially required. Many people believe just that.ant wrote:I stated a fact.
There are no assumptions in science that should survive or be allowed to masquerade as Fact.
I stated a fact about what TOE does not address.
-
In total there are 31 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 29 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 851 on Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:30 am
Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
-
-
Kindle Fanatic
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
- 8
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 40 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
The book will give more credible evidence toward the Bible being credible than ever given before (according to my knowledge). The book makes numerous points to build only one provable solution - Jesus Christ, is the Son of God! The Bible is the only authoritative book of God (with Judaism being almost the same).
Just for interesting fact, "What is the only spiritual book that claims another spiritual book is the word of God?"
Just for interesting fact, "What is the only spiritual book that claims another spiritual book is the word of God?"
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Theists posit a common designer for living things so similarities are explained on that basis. Our worldviews influence our understanding and interpretation of the data on all sides.brother bob wrote:Flann, Could God have made some the of the species with extreme similarity because MAN was the best model, and thus, you would want to copy it in a similar way, but still make it different.
I don't find randomness (mutations) a convincing explanation given the extreme complexity and order of living things.
At the same time I think intelligent design models are unsatisfactory where you have intermittent brand new creations occurring.
Young earth creationism has to address the data such as starlight and distance. Some attempts are made such as the relativity of time being a factor.
Genesis doesn't say exactly when the beginning was.
The general scientific consensus at the present is that macro-evolution has occurred with disagreements about the neo-Darwinian synthesis as a model needing augmenting to account for current knowledge.
I think there are good reasons to question macro-evolution but have to concede that it's the generally accepted view among biologists, at least at this moment.
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Yet the micro vs macro evolution thing isn't even tenable, is it, Flann? Either intellectually or scientifically, it looks clear that we have a false distinction here. Macro evolution is a whole lotta micro evolution. Simple as that, no? One cannot be true and the other false.
You are by far the best proponent of ID/creationist views we have seen on BT. Often you argue your point on a fairly minute level that shows good preparation for debate. But if you wouldn't mind zooming back for a minute, what is your take on the relatedness of living things, I mean of the physical evidence that some creatures are clearly more similar than others? Is it your view, as you just hinted, that the similarities between, for example, apes and humans, can all be explained as the product of the same designer? Would this designer be working continuously on his creations, or would he have accomplished what we see in one session?
You are by far the best proponent of ID/creationist views we have seen on BT. Often you argue your point on a fairly minute level that shows good preparation for debate. But if you wouldn't mind zooming back for a minute, what is your take on the relatedness of living things, I mean of the physical evidence that some creatures are clearly more similar than others? Is it your view, as you just hinted, that the similarities between, for example, apes and humans, can all be explained as the product of the same designer? Would this designer be working continuously on his creations, or would he have accomplished what we see in one session?
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
I'm a Christian theist Dwill, so that clearly influences my thinking. Theoretically a lot of micro-evolution could produce macro.DWill wrote:Yet the micro vs macro evolution thing isn't even tenable, is it, Flann? Either intellectually or scientifically, it looks clear that we have a false distinction here. Macro evolution is a whole lotta micro evolution. Simple as that, no? One cannot be true and the other false.
In reality there seems to be real limits and boundaries to how much variation is possible in species. Pretty much in agreement with the biblical concept of creatures reproducing after their kind.
There's no doubt that genetic similarity is real so humans produce humans and mice produce mice. Cat's don't produce dogs even though there are similarities in form. Four legs,fur,two eyes etc and I expect there are also genes in common between them.DWill wrote:But if you wouldn't mind zooming back for a minute, what is your take on the relatedness of living things, I mean of the physical evidence that some creatures are clearly more similar than others?
Species are defined as creatures that can mate and reproduce. I'm not sure how much can be deduced from genetic similarity.There are real differences genetically and physically between apes and humans as well as the similarities.
There are anomalous and unexpected findings in genomes as the article shows.You can make an argument for relatedness or for common design.
My personal view is that an initial creation of various kinds whether fish ,birds mammals or reptiles is more likely than continuous intervention though future diversification within limits would be built in.DWill wrote: Is it your view, as you just hinted, that the similarities between, for example, apes and humans, can all be explained as the product of the same designer? Would this designer be working continuously on his creations, or would he have accomplished what we see in one session?
That's largely because of my belief in Christianity that I think this, but I don't see evidence of macro-evolution of the sort the theory requires but rather of limits to variation.
So it's top down rather than bottom up. For Richard Dawkins things go from simple to complex and it's random and unguided though he regards natural selection as having a role as selector of the "fit."
I don't have a satisfactory answer to the age of the earth question and am not that sure Genesis requires it to be young.
Theistic evolution has the problem of humans suddenly acquiring souls but I don't find the theory convincing anyway.
I think that a good deal of the response criticising Neo-Darwinism from I.D. advocates is directed at the idea of blind un-guidedness and unintentional 'design' as Richard Dawkins and others insist.
That's just my view Dwill, but I try to give cogent reasons for design and purpose in nature in response to dogmatic assertions of it all being ultimately accident and not designed at all.
-
-
Kindle Fanatic
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
- 8
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 40 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Flann, "I don't have a satisfactory answer to the age of the earth question and am not that sure Genesis requires it to be young." the Bible does advocate a specific timeline as it speaks of creation being 6 days. This, along with its genealogies give us a timeline that earth is extremely around the 6,000 year age. My findings in the book will document how there is not great credibility that the Biblical account must be correct.
Good thoughts though, Brother Bob
Good thoughts though, Brother Bob
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Johnson "1) every single case of sexual reproduction produces something SPECIFICALLY not identical to either parent. Generating variations from the starting template is part of the process. It's ingrained. These changes are exactly the changes that propel evolution.
The fact of eye color variance is a part of evolution, but not evolution in itself. Evolution is the accumulation of such traits so that all members of a genetically, spatially, or temporally sequestered group will get the trait. But there’s more to it than that.According to this argument "because my kid has blue eyes instead of brown is evolution?" I guess we should not have apple trees, redwoods or anything to date over time.
I’m not seeing what dots you connected to make that tree comment.
This is absolutely incorrect. Evolution is very definitely NOT removing the prior species.Variance is not evolution - evolution is removing the prior species. But we still have apes. the dumb ones, who took a wrong turn.
Nobody who understands evolution will take that position.
New species can and do derive from current species, and darwin’s finches, one of the first examples of evolution ever put forward are an example of this. These are called “Ring Species” (google it) where the spread of a species over terrain can lead to a variety of species all existing at the same time but separated by geography.
According to your definition of thermodynamics there should be no single cell ameba's. We should be able to "make" helium attach and make water in a confined environment.
We CAN put chemicals together to make new compounds. We do it literally all the time.
If you read the thread you should have seen that “my” definition of thermodynamics does no such thing. Read it again. You didn’t understand. If you are having difficulties feel free to ask specific questions and I will attempt to answer clearly.
We don't see matter getting more complex. We do however see them brake down. We see the genetic defect of men having one less chromosome. People have generations of health defects. In my lifetime there have new diseases of herpes, aids and many others. These "set backs" show that man is not progressing.
Matter does get more complex all the time. There is nothing in thermodynamics that prevents that from happening so long as energy is being put into the system. Your own statement here points out the addition of “new diseases” which would be the development of new complex configurations of matter. The fact that some species of life prey on people is no evidence at all of an over-all inability for matter to become more complex.
What the hell is this? Are you slipping a bit of racism into the mix... just to be utterly detestable as well as wrong?Keep intermarrying and watch the digression of this certain segment of species. this would totally go against the "desire" of the molecules to become complex.
Who ever said that molecules “desire” to become complex? If you had read the thermodynamics thread I referred you to, you would have read that complex molecules are possible because they are energetically favorable compared to their component parts.Not to mention that you have not figured out the reason behind these molecules desire to become complex. do they feel inept or shamed by being a head of lettuce?
That’s correct. Variation in itself is no evolution. It is a component. Variation is the set of options which are then selected against by natural selection.3) variation is not evolution. It is just a different same! Mankind is evolving because we have 3-9 feet people? Because they have different hair color or eye color? How come a healthy person reproduced such a greatly defected being? Autism, missing limbs, diseases, etc. That would defy your concept that molecules must become more complex.
Evolution is not about achieving perfect form. Genetic mishaps happen all the time. Nothing about that means molecules have become “less complex” even though that was never the argument I was making.
Literally all of them.4) tell me what beings have evolved?
Ruminantia/pecora/giraffidae/giraffe5) What did the giraffe evolve from? It was impossible, and I will prove it. And the giraffe can't evolve in the future.
Giraffes descend from a common ancestor as all other ruminants, meaning at base it’s related to chevrotains, deer, musk deer, antillope, sheep, buffalo, and cattle.
One of the later clefts in the giraffe lineage led to the Okapi.
Feel free to look any of this stuff up.
6) Which one of the Young Earth "clocks" are proven wrong?
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within ... ncentrates7) Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate. They have taken objects that they knew the date of and its origin by historical events, and the dating was wrong. Check out the Mt. St. Helens activity from 1988 that was dated millions of years.
This, right?
I’ve done a bit of research after your post and after only about 15 minutes of looking it appears that Dr Steve Austin’s methods were hopelessly flawed from the outset, and in typical creationist quackery, was deliberately filed incorrectly with the lab to be tested with the wrong methodology. Different radioactive elements have different half-lives which equate to having rulers which work best at certain “distances” or in this case time scales. If your ruler only has mile-markers on it, for instance, it won’t be much use telling you how tall your counter-top is.
Beside this one instance of thoroughly refuted creationist fraud, what else leads you to think radiometric dating doesn’t work?
Well, lets start with this:8+) how do you know the Bible is wrong? were you there? My book proves how it is right!! Tripple Bingo!! Yatzhee!
The bible calls bats “fowl”. I don’t have to be a bronze age tribesman to know they were wrong about that. If we are naming games we like…. JENGA!
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Well Johnson, the giraffe ancestry is disputed and the fossil evidence is lacking to support it. Your statement is more an assertion based on the assumption of the theory itself of common ancestry and the relatedness of all living things.johnson1010 wrote:Quote:
5) What did the giraffe evolve from? It was impossible, and I will prove it. And the giraffe can't evolve in the future.
Ruminantia/pecora/giraffidae/giraffe
Giraffes descend from a common ancestor as all other ruminants, meaning at base it’s related to chevrotains, deer, musk deer, antillope, sheep, buffalo, and cattle.
One of the later clefts in the giraffe lineage led to the Okapi.
Feel free to look any of this stuff up.
It's a bit like the whale from land mammal hypothesis. Several different ancestors for whales are suggested by different people.Even based on fossils they don't agree and others suggest hippo like ancestor based on genetics.
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf The evolution of the long necked giraffe.
To be sure the king James bible translates it fowl but the original Hebrew more precisely means "owner of a wing."johnson1010 wrote: Well, lets start with this:
The bible calls bats “fowl”. I don’t have to be a bronze age tribesman to know they were wrong about that.
I wouldn't expect Aron Ra to know the original Hebrew,though he could check an online dictionary such as Strong's, but he throws out these kinds of criticisms and never seems to check any responses to his criticisms.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.php
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
-
Kindle Fanatic
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm
- 8
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 40 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Why can't the giraffe evolve? Has anyone taken the effort to find out why they can't? It has to do with their heart and the flow of blood to his head. The amount of pressure needed to get it to his head, when his head is elevated, is greater than what it can handle when it is lowered. It would have an aneurism if the pressure was the same. There is a valve to taper the flow of blood with it is lowered and released when it is raised. Thus it is too complex to evolve into something else without killing it. Thus evolution cannot be factual. Good day
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Wherein Bob makes a case of evolution vs. creationism
Evolution is about gradual changes over time through many generations.
If a giraffe lineage were to evolve into something with shorter necks, which certainly could happen, it would be accompanied by a reduction in the blood pressure to the head... just as the lengthening of the neck was accompanied by an increase in blood pressure to the head.
If the blood pressure failed to reduce and it caused life-threatening problems for the giraffe progeny those variants would die out. This is called natural selection and is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about. So you are right that if those things don't change at the same time there could be a big problem for animals that tend in that direction but fail to evolve all necessary changes together.
In other words, this observation is not evidence against evolution... it is in fact exactly what evolution explains.
Natural selection is what is funneling lineages into these morphologies. In other words, animals cannot randomly jump into random body configurations because when changes happen... what determines whether those changes persist... is whether or not the animal dies because of them.
That's natural selection.
Species can absolutely die out because they've painted themselves into a specialization corner. It is not required that species of animals always evolve out of changing environmental circumstances for evolution to be true. The extinction of 99 percent of all animal species which ever lived is not proof evolution is impossible.
Before we got here, in fact, this was the most common reason species went extinct. An inability to evolve in a way that ensured survival for the lineage. Either changes in the environment progressed more quickly than they could evolve, or another species gained an advantage that out-competed them for the resources they needed to live.
If a giraffe lineage were to evolve into something with shorter necks, which certainly could happen, it would be accompanied by a reduction in the blood pressure to the head... just as the lengthening of the neck was accompanied by an increase in blood pressure to the head.
If the blood pressure failed to reduce and it caused life-threatening problems for the giraffe progeny those variants would die out. This is called natural selection and is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about. So you are right that if those things don't change at the same time there could be a big problem for animals that tend in that direction but fail to evolve all necessary changes together.
In other words, this observation is not evidence against evolution... it is in fact exactly what evolution explains.
Natural selection is what is funneling lineages into these morphologies. In other words, animals cannot randomly jump into random body configurations because when changes happen... what determines whether those changes persist... is whether or not the animal dies because of them.
That's natural selection.
Species can absolutely die out because they've painted themselves into a specialization corner. It is not required that species of animals always evolve out of changing environmental circumstances for evolution to be true. The extinction of 99 percent of all animal species which ever lived is not proof evolution is impossible.
Before we got here, in fact, this was the most common reason species went extinct. An inability to evolve in a way that ensured survival for the lineage. Either changes in the environment progressed more quickly than they could evolve, or another species gained an advantage that out-competed them for the resources they needed to live.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?