Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > It's all settled!...Proof God Exists!

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,05:38    PM "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer. "Goddidit" is not. What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"? Thanks in advance. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

inquiry Posts: 17 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,08:31    Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 10 2009,23:07) 3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Good point, although I wasn't necessarily agreeing with this defintion as much as I was trying to include certain things under the term "species" for further investigation, point well taken.

inquiry Posts: 17 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,08:38    Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 11 2009,04:25) Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size. Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Thanks

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,09:05    Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 10 2009,15:16) Quote Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:31) Since I had numerous responses I’m going to try to respond to as much as I can by posting a series of replies. I apologize in advance if you feel this is too much at once, but I figured it is the best way to address everyone’s (more or less) comments. Evolutionary / Darwinian species   A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species I think this most accurately defines what I mean by species. Additionally, species for me includes organisms that are asexual (bacteria for example), able to sexually reproduce, and no longer living (found in the fossil record). Groovy. Now, what the heck is a 'kind'? I ask because now that you agree with real scientists that evolution can indeed produce new species, your 'reasons' for rejecting evolution appear to have been reduced to yeah, but that's just new species and not new kinds, so I really want to know what, exactly, this 'kind'-thingie decently is. Because if you can't tell what 'kind' a critter is, complaining that evolution can't produce new 'kind's is exactly as meaningless as complaining that evolution can't produce new 'zibbleblorf's. Okay? Um...not really, no. Seems Inquiry is not quite on the same page as Wiki or scientists on what a species is: Quote The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals). JLT mentioned the possibility of two separate species coming about by the separation of a population that could eventually lead to an inability to reproduce (due to the genetic changes from the differing environments), hence two separate species. Seems Inquiry isn't aware that there are many species of fruit flies within the family Drosophiladae and in turn there are many families of flies within the order Diptera and in turn there are many orders of insects within the class insecta and so on. So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,09:17    Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,08:38) Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 11 2009,04:25) Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size. Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Thanks More Information Here -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,09:23    [quote=phantom menace,Dec. 10 2009,23:07][/quote] Quote Hey folks, just thought I would drop in on this conversation and add a few observations. 1) I noticed several refernces to natural law in relation to the origin of biological diversity, but I didn't see an account given of natural law itself from what appears to be some unexamined materialist assumptions. Anyone care to explain why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos? And by explain, I mean give us your empirical observations since that seems to be the only grounds for knowledge you guys consider valid. Before I can answer this I need some additional information. For starters, why do you presume that there must be one or the other? In other words, what other universes have you seen or what evidence have you seen that leads you to conclude that there could be an alternative to this universe having laws? Why do you presume that there's a possibility that this universe could have been "just chaos?" Quote 2) It would seem to me that the issue of isolated populations is an example of devolution and not evolution. In fact it is becoming quite clear that genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena much better than natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. Since negative mutations far exceed positive mutations (assuming that there are some actual net-positive mutations) it is no wonder that organisims can actually lose functionality when isolated. I need further information on this claim too. For starters, what do you mean by "devolution" as opposed to "evolution"? I mean, evolution - that is the process - doesn't describe a specific direction of change. It merely describes change. So gaining light sensitive organs and the ability to use light sensing as a means to make decisions about the environment vs losing light sensitive organs are both the result of evolution at least as far as the ToE goes. Secondly, can you elaborate on what you mean by "genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena"? I can't find any need for a reference to entropy for the phenomenon of loss of functionality in isolated organism populations. Quote 3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Don't worry though, Darwin's definition is just an assumption that he made and has no biological necessity to it. If we assume the process of evolution in defining a species then of course evolution has "produced" new species. What I would like to know is if your opponents can define a species apart from an evolutionary assumption? Um...sure: Species - American Heritage® Dictionary NOUN: 1. Biology a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy. b. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse. Doesn't require an understanding of evolution at all. Does require an understanding of scientific taxonomy though. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

inquiry Posts: 17 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:04    Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05) So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:09    Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04) Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05) So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution? Not at all. There's loads: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:19    Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04) Quote Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05) So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution? There is abundant evidence to support macroevolution as provided - phylogenic evidence, historic evidence, molecular evidence, functional evidence, etc. Macroevolution isn't a separate process - it is merely an accumulation of microevolutionary events. But then your question doesn't follow your preceding statements where you only mentioned "evolution" vs "kind", never defining "evolution", "kind", or "speciation". This was particularly confusing since you insisted that the development of new species of fly wasn't speciation, when in fact that is, by definition, an example of speciation and evolution - both micro and macro. So you seem not to understand the nature of the claims you are making. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

ppb Posts: 325 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:22    Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,11:04) Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05) So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution? For the ToE, the only difference between micro and macro evolution is loads of time.  There is lots of evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record.  Take a look at Tiktaalik as one example of macroevolution.  Tiktaalik is but one stop in the transition from fins to limbs.  That's macroevolution. -------------- "[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." - Richard P. Feynman

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,10:25    ERVs are probably the best evidence for human Macroevolution. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,13:49    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2009,10:25) ERVs are probably the best evidence for human Macroevolution. Which may be why Behe failed to mention them as evidence for evolution in the Edge. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,13:57    Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 11 2009,13:49)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2009,10:25) ERVs are probably the best evidence for human Macroevolution. Which may be why Behe failed to mention them as evidence for evolution in the Edge. Actually, they're quite a good "Signature in the cell"   Quote Just a quick not that my random insertion into this ape genome has gone great and even if I'm not functioning anymore I do feel that I can live on, my lateral gene transference giving this hairy little fella a source of variation that might prove useful -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,15:05    Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04) Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05) So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution? No, it means you made a category error. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,15:37    Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,08:38)   Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 11 2009,04:25) Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size. Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Thanks I think perhaps your question might be more profitably directed towards Phantom Menace, since PM is the one who introduced the notion of "evolutionary assumption" in this context. I am unsure what PM means when PM says "evolutionary assumption"... but the Biological Species Concept depends only on the ability (or lack thereof) of two critters to interbreed, so I figure it's at least a good bet that the BSC is not a species-definition that PM would deem based on "evolutionary assumption". We shall see, if PM ever chooses to grace this forum with their presence again. Oh, and are you ever going to respond to all the people who pointed out problems in your recent posts, inquiry? Are you ever going to respond to any of those people?

jswilkins Posts: 50 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,16:45    It's also worth pointing out that the BSC precedes any evolutionary view but Maupertuis' by a good decade or so; it was proposed first so far as I can tell, by Blumenbach in the late 18th century (contrary to claims of originality by Mayr). -------------- Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,18:53    I'd like to add that Inquiry explain why he seemed to cut-and-paste what looks like Behe's book, down to the lame "all the machines in the cell had to evolve from things with the same function" idea.  Mutations happen, and many gene duplications (and mutations) can cause new functions to appear (as one example in general).  The idea that what exists now must have either (a) always existed, or (b) evolved in one go-round to something like it's present state is really a creationist one.  Evolution works on everything living, and new functions (and other things) arrive all the time. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,20:32    Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)   Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05) So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution? I always use this to answer the stupid micro=good, macro=no way: From our friends at Jesus and Mo -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2009,22:59    Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,18:53) I'd like to add that Inquiry explain why he seemed to cut-and-paste what looks like Behe's book, down to the lame "all the machines in the cell had to evolve from things with the same function" idea.  Mutations happen, and many gene duplications (and mutations) can cause new functions to appear (as one example in general).  The idea that what exists now must have either (a) always existed, or (b) evolved in one go-round to something like it's present state is really a creationist one.  Evolution works on everything living, and new functions (and other things) arrive all the time. Behe or Dembski?  Did I confuse the two? -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,16:04    Quote Behe or Dembski???Did I confuse the two? Aren't those two always confused? Henry

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,18:03    Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle. That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

dnmlthr Posts: 565 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2009,07:44    Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 13 2009,00:03) That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved. As long as a homeopath mixes the drinks... -------------- Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,18:45    Bump!...this was great! Inquiry and the other logical fallacy guy, please come back! -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

phantom menace Posts: 7 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:06    Quote I am unsure what PM means when PM says "evolutionary assumption"... but the Biological Species Concept depends only on the ability (or lack thereof) of two critters to interbreed, so I figure it's at least a good bet that the BSC is not a species-definition that PM would deem based on "evolutionary assumption". You are correct. However, I am not the one interested in defining species, I was just curious if anyone here would offer a definition that didn't begin with an assumption of the validity of evolution. You win the prize. Now, can you distinguish your definition from Inquiry's kind?

phantom menace Posts: 7 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:13    Quote So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation? Their consistency, rationality, force, etc. Why is there order when there should be disorder? Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up? Why are natural laws rational? Why do you have a mind that grasps them? Why can you count? Etc. It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood. That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered.

phantom menace Posts: 7 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:22    Quote Is it your position that our understanding of biological diversity is somehow flawed as a result of our not having a good explanation for how natural laws come about? For bonus points, please explain why the lack of an explanation for how natural laws came about is especially problematic for biology in particular, as opposed to being equally problematic for all fields of science in general. And what "unexamined materialist assumptions" do you refer to, please? Are you laying the foundation of a later "evolution = TEH ATHEISM" argument, by any chance? 1) No. 2) I never said it was more problematic for biology than for other fields. 3) No, there are theistic evolutionists so evolution cannot be an argument against God. At best it can only serve as a very poor excuse for not believing in God because it alleges to answer the origin of life question (at least in some minds). Of course, it doesn't actually speak to origins, only diversity so it can't be used in the atheism / theism debate.

phantom menace Posts: 7 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:26    Quote Gosh, PM, it sure is a good thing you don't sneer at your opponents or make veiled accusations of intellectual incapacity or anything like that, because if you did, that would make you some kind of hypocrite... Touche! But my point was to try to head it off by making the case against it. I did so not because I assumed that there were some folks here who interacted that way, but because they had already demonstrated a propensity for it. P.S. what makes you assume that I was speaking to my opponents? I hate it even more when those who are on my side do that stuff. It in no way helps their case, just makes them look childish.

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:37    Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:13) Quote So what exactly is it about laws that requires explanation? Their consistency, rationality, force, etc. Why is there order when there should be disorder? Just think thermodynamics - something within physics itself is working to burn this universe out, what started it up? Why are natural laws rational? Why do you have a mind that grasps them? Why can you count? Etc. It would seem to me that science PRESUPPOSES a rational universe, one that can be understood. That is precisely why science arose in a Christian worldview as opposed to a Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc. worldview. Early scientist believed in the order of the universe because they believed it was created by a rational God who ordered. mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god? Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B. Carry on. -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

phantom menace Posts: 7 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:52    Quote "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer. "Goddidit" is not. What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"? 1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge. 2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now). 3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others. Quote Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle. That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved. You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms. By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION. In fact, can anyone here tell me what takes place genetically when dogs are bred to exhibit specific traits? Are those traits created through breeding or are all the unwanted traits simply eliminated? Does a doberman have more genetic potential than say a mutt?

phantom menace Posts: 7 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,20:57    Quote mmmmmm....Rational God.  So, you can offer proof of god? Please do.  Oh, and as usual, don't assume if A is incorrect that proves B. Carry on. If time were on my side, maybe. But for now I will stop and wait for responses to my posts (if everyone hasn't given up that is - I have been distracted by my truck dying on me this week and was not able to respond promptly).

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard