Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[WidowMakers]

Evolution has been measured.
it has been empirically studied in the case of short lived creatures.
Not just bacteria but also in more complex life-forms such as insects.

I would be interested in seeing your data on what "evolution" has been measured. There are many ways people confuse the terms evolution. Some say any change in DNA is evolution. Some say natural selection is evolution. But I will say again,
For the purpose of this discussion:
EVOLUTION is that change from one species to another.
That is what we are really talking about in this area. Can and do mutations produce enough change to create a different species through evolution.

Genetic variation has been measured but change from species to a different species (what we are actually arguing about) has never been seen.

Widow has put in a admiral amount of work on this and his arguments, if not compelling, should be respected due to him giving it a real go in the absence of much to work with!

But come on this is very much like still arguing that the world is flat.
I mean really; have you been to outer-space and witnessed the shimmering blue orb first had? I haven't! hey perhaps outer-space as a concept is all fabricated too.

Perhaps the fact that a sea-ships mast disappears over the horizon is not to do with the curvature of the Earth but the curving of the 'visibility-plane' under the holy-spritational force.

Really anything can be argued; argued with a little more sincerity and leg-work, i could put in a good case for the Earth being flat... but it's not... is it?

Well if you want to use the argument that "I have never been there so it might not be true" means that every text book that gives information based on another persons personal experience cannot be trusted. This is not a valid argument.

I am sorry but you could not put together a good case for a flat earth. There are tests and observations that stand up to scientific scrutiny. Those would prove the earth is not flat but a sphere (more or less).

Evolution is not provable (as I have said in my TL:DR post).
Please someone can show me:

-Where information came from out of randomness
-How less complex matter, energy, and compounds randomly and naturally combined to form more complex higher energy structures. (How do stars and planets form from a big explosion of nothing? (Read here http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_2.htm for more issues with Stellar evolution, which is required before biological evolution to take place.)
-Mutations that show speciation taking place.
-How man would have evolved from a lower form (speciation no longer being able to reproduce with the old form) in the exact same time that a female would have done the same thing (what are the odds of that) so that the human species could reproduce and continue to populate.
-How mutations add new information that is usable and increases the amount in a organism
-How natural selection causes speciation
-Plus all of the other things I wrote about where evolution is just assumed to have taken place but yet no evidence or evidence against it.

[WidowMakers]

Creationism is not supported at all by anything. Genetics, fossils, and irreducible complexity are some of the important supporting factors of Evolution. Genetics show that over a period of time people steadily change. Fossils link humans to a common ancestor. Irreducible complexity is the belief that somethings are too complex to have come from evolution or to be simplified.

The belief is falsified. Take a mouse trap. You can simplify it by taking out the hammer and spring and it makes a good tie clip and that can be simplified more by taking every part except for the wood board. It could be a doorstop or a paperweight.

For more information, look up the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.

1) You say creation not supported by anything. First of all I would like you to produce one true fact from science that contradicts the theory of creation. The three topics you point out: Genetics, fossils, and irreducible complexity do not contradict creation. There are many holes in those issues that I have already written about (except irreducible complexity).

I am not saying creation is proved by science, I am saying creation does not contradict science. Regardless of the time that the universe has been around, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of gravity, the laws of magnetism, biology, fossils, geology, physics, etc, they do not prove creation wrong. Creation can exist within the realm of science. By saying it is not supported by anything is not correct. You may not agree that it is true but it does not contradict any of the above issues.

2) There are two things you need to think about when talking about irreducible complexity. a) Could the system function or have purpose before. b) How likely is it that all of the needed mutations randomly acted together over time to produce a better system, when mutations are completely random?

a) You are taking the mousetrap analogy out of context. The purpose is to show that the mousetrap worked only as a whole system and it purpose, to catch a mouse, is irreducible. Just like the eye, or the clotting of blood is a system together with a purpose, the mousetrap needs to be all together to function.

By saying that the pieces could have existed elsewhere does not mean anything. This assumes their functions before would allow them to be in the exact size and orientation to build a mouse tap by chance.
Irreducible complexity is about a system that would not function as the same system if any part was removed.

With your analogy, let us take apart an internal combustion engine. Let us say every piece is a paper weight. And based on that, these "paper weights" could be put together into an engine. But only because they were already formed to make an engine.

But what are the odds that random paperweights could be put together to make an engine?
Here are issues with evolution based on IC
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... pter10.asp

Creationism is not Science because it does not raise questions or new hypotheses, cannot be tested in a controlled experiment, and do not generate any predictions.

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology. For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.

I have already listed why both of these theories cannot be tested. And what scientific research has produced conclusions that contradict the bible, and how where those conclusions formulated? I have listed those in the TL:DR post and they are full of holes as well.

Plus is it not interesting that several other non creationists say the theory has not helped science. And if you feel these quotes are wrong or old, please give me some new quotes the contradict these with explanations from more current evolutionists

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

A growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and conclusions in our modern world.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959], was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.

"The very success of the Darwinian model at a microevolutionary [sub-species] level . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary [across species] level."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 344.

"The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world."—*Sir Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."-- *Stephen Hawking

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."--* Sir Fred Hoyle, Astrophysicist

[WidowMakers]

Anyways, WM get an editter because this is actually really good. Unfortunatley you have the wrong idea about a lot of things. The big one is the gases not bunching up to make stars. They do. Physics and a number of experiments proves it.

I already posted this link above but I will do it again. But here is a brief list of the issues with stellar evolution and why this cannot and does not happen randomly.

1-A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe.
2-Nothingness cannot pack together
3-A vacuum has no density
4-There would be no ignition to explode nothingness
5-Nothingness cannot produce heat
6-The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter
7-There is no way to unite the particles
8-Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles
9-The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever
10-Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together
11-Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract
12-The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements
13-Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits
14-Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the entire theory of the Big Bang
15-There is no known mechanical process that can accomplish a transfer of angular (turning, spinning, orbiting) momentum from the sun to its planets.

Any many more here: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_2.htm

Again, you need a proved and good case for stellar evolution before biological evolution can take place.

Well he doesn't look at the fact that some elements are naturally inclined to attach to each other than others - much more probable. So probable that amino acids, the base of life, is actually on comets which never touched earth.

Well here a couple of quick issues with amino acids and proteins spontaneously forming
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_7.htm

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND THE LAW OF MASS ACTION
The Law of Mass Action would immediately neutralize the procedure (small compunds jining into larger ones) and ruin the outcome. This is because chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration

"It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."—*Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.

We are told that amino acids miraculously formed themselves out of seawater. But the seawater needed to make the amino acids would prevent them from forming into protein, lipids, nucleic acids and polysaccharides! Even if some protein could possibly form, the law of mass action would immediately become operative upon it. The protein would hydrolyze with the abundant water and return back into the original amino acids! Those, in turn, would immediately break down into separate chemicals—and that would be the end of it.

"Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly than spontaneous synthesis . . [This fact is] the most stubborn problem that confronts us."—*George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, pp. 49-50.

The law of mass action would constitute a hindrance to protein formation in the sea as well as to the successful formation of other life-sustaining compounds, such as lipids, nucleic acids, and polysaccharides. If any could possibly form in water, they would not last long enough to do anything.

This law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible,—and thus to all life compounds. Such reactions proceed from reactant substances to compounds produced in the manner normally expected. But these reactions tend to reverse themselves more easily and quickly (*"Review of R. Shubert-Soldern’s Book, Mechanism and Vitalism," in Discovery, May 1962, p. 44).

Not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw seawater devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein. The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction that made the amino acids occurred, the excess water would have had to immediately be removed.

"Dehydration [condensation] reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess water."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND PRECIPITATES

Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized "primitive water" would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and enzymes formed (David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107).

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND OXYGEN
Another problem is the atmosphere. It is a well-known fact among biochemists that the chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air

Living plants and animals only have certain proportions of the 92 elements within their bodies. These elements are arranged in special chemical compounds. Chemists say they have been reduced. When the chemicals found in living beings are left in the open air, they decompose or, as the chemists say, they oxidize. (A similar process occurs when iron is left in a bucket of water; it rusts.)

In the presence of oxygen, these chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state and break down to individual chemicals again.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.

"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.

PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS
Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein!

There is more to a living organism than merely chemical compounds, proteins, and fatty acids.

There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not know how to produce.
Yet there are thousands of complicated, very different enzymes in a typical animal!
And all of them happened by chance

[WidowMakers]

I'm through the first 3 parts as well, and even on a rather cursory reading I've spotted several flaws, leaps in the logic and downright false conclusions.

What, where, how?

What you quite conveniently forget to point out is that we do not solely depend on Carbon 14 half-life to determine age. Lots of these flaws you point out are silly because we used other things to look if it was correct.

You mean the other dating methods? I also have shown how those are full of holes as well.

I am really interested in hearing from someone how the original dates were set before radiometric dating. What is everyone's opinion on that? Because as I have shown, those dates were around long before these tests were discovered/invented.

SO PLEASE TELL ME.

admittedly moral concience is a bit of a social construct, which does necessarily evolve but it does change over time.

To grossely oversimply things....
Throughout recent history some social things have changed.
-A few hundred years ago, there was nothing at all wrong with owning the rights to another person.
-A hundred years ago, there was nothing wrong at all with not taking the time to wonder if your industry was endangering the environment or perhaps even women or children.
-A few decades ago, there was nothing at all wrong with thinking that women had no place at all in the workforce.
-A few decades ago there was nothing wrong with being unworried about safe sex, because at the time people figured the worst thing that could happen was pregnancy.

Opinions about social behavior change over time, even if they dont for an individual person. However these changes affect all of us in some way, even if its less or more at different times. Its quite likely that if i had been born in a different time period, even in the recent history, id have a very different idea of morality. Morals dont play much into the evolutionary debate, unless your arguing that morality has an evolutionary function, which in all likelyhood it does. Your not going to pass on your genes (in all likelyhood) if all the suitable partners dislike you because they think you are bad.

I really was not looking to get into this side of the debate but you brought it up so….

First of all, you said that moral conscience changes over time but is not evolving. That is the definition everyone has been using for evolution in this thread: Small changes over time. So actually if the moral conscience is changing over time, it IS evolving.

And second, if the moral conscience is evolving, there is no foundation to which any morals can be based. The majority of the people determine the morals of the day.
I ask everyone this question, are you OK with that?

You might be able to say, sure that is fine, and the majority determines right and wrong. But what if the majority differs from your beliefs?

Let's say Hitler would have won WW2. Would he then be justified in his killing of innocent people? If moral conscience is ever evolving, then no one can say he was wrong.

I would like everyone to answer these questions in a post please.

1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?

4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?

If you answer "It is wrong" to any of those questions, then that means you do not feel that there are evolving morals. You feel that there are things that are wrong (such as killing your for no reason) all the time. But if nothing is right or wrong, the majority is always justified in anything they do.

Can you agree to that? If you do agree that morals evolve, anytime someone does "wrong" to you, you have no basis to get angry or mad, because the ever evolving moral code might be changing.

SO please explain.

[Blitzaholic]

not sure if this was said



but be realistic and intelligent about this


if you look closely at the world, space, stars, rainbows, valleys, etc



ask yourself do you see design?


meaning do you see shape, beauty, forms?


the answer is


YES of course


so if there is design, there must be a Designer, period, keep it simple guys and avoid arguing.



let me put it another way, if you saw a beautiful canvas painted of landscapes and lived on an island your whole life and knew nothing else.


is it more credible to believe the canvas happened by random time and chance over milllions of years? or that an artist went thru a lot to color this beautiful master piece?


may sound silly, but of course it is the artist, no different then the universe on a much larger scale


perhaps some of you may not know who that artist is, but much easier to belief an artist created that canvas then it evolving

[WidowMakers]

not sure if this was said
but be realistic and intelligent about this

if you look closely at the world, space, stars, rainbows, valleys, etc
ask yourself do you see design?
meaning do you see shape, beauty, forms?
the answer is

YES of course

so if there is design, there must be a Designer, period, keep it simple guys and avoid arguing.

let me put it another way, if you saw a beautiful canvas painted of landscapes and lived on an island your whole life and knew nothing else.
is it more credible to believe the canvas happened by random time and chance over milllions of years? or that an artist went thru a lot to color this beautiful master piece?

may sound silly, but of course it is the artist, no different then the universe on a much larger scale

perhaps so of you may not know who that artist is, but much easier to belief an artist created that canvas then it evolving

I agree with you Blitz but I am sure you are going to get blasted for saying that in a thread that is focusing (for teh most part) around science.

But regardless I agree.

WM

[Blitzaholic]

blasted, lol, just giving them another angle to view from is all, not here for argument, was just another way to view it is all, keep opened minded, later all.

[Carebian Knight]

I agree with WM, god post Blitz, I can't wait to see what they come up with against it.

[Whathell]

not sure if this was said
but be realistic and intelligent about this

if you look closely at the world, space, stars, rainbows, valleys, etc
ask yourself do you see design?
meaning do you see shape, beauty, forms?
the answer is

YES of course

so if there is design, there must be a Designer, period, keep it simple guys and avoid arguing.

let me put it another way, if you saw a beautiful canvas painted of landscapes and lived on an island your whole life and knew nothing else.
is it more credible to believe the canvas happened by random time and chance over milllions of years? or that an artist went thru a lot to color this beautiful master piece?

may sound silly, but of course it is the artist, no different then the universe on a much larger scale

perhaps so of you may not know who that artist is, but much easier to belief an artist created that canvas then it evolving

I agree with you Blitz but I am sure you are going to get blasted for saying that in a thread that is focusing (for teh most part) around science.

But regardless I agree.

WM

"beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"

shapes and forms are just shapes and forms, the concept of beauty(or good design) for one person may be different to another, i feel that your argument of beauty/design is invalid...

the question of whether these shapes & forms are created due to various forces that are in play in our universe or the will of 1 specific entity has not been answered with any evidence

did 1 entity will the erosion of landscapes etc over time to create a certain shape? or is it simply a result of different forces involved in earth... did this 1 entity will the current state of global warming? did this 1 entity will the majority of humans to chase industrialization to just cause this or is it a simply a result of humans as a specie in their self interest to enhance their race...

[Carebian Knight]

Global Warming is no longer believed by the majority of sceintists, I'd give you the link if I had it but, in the last couple of decades, our planet's temperatures have risen that's true. But if you look at the couple of decades before they started measuring for global warming purposes, the earth decreased a few degrees in temperature. So in truth, we are back where we were about 100 years ago, we are no worse off as far as the world flooding because of global warming.

[Backglass]

Global Warming is no longer believed by the majority of sceintists

What? WHAT?!

My dear deluded friend you have it 180 degrees backwards.

100% of Scientists...and in fact most rational people accept that Global Warming is real. There is NO doubt that the planet IS warming.

The ONLY debate lies in whether or not it is natural, cyclical warming or influenced by man.

Please...switch off the 700 club and watch some news once in a while.

[silvanricky]

Please...switch off the 700 club and watch some news once in a while.

I watched that show once and saw Pat Robertson claim he could leg press 1,000 pounds or something. (if i'm wrong on the amount of weight sorry)

[Backglass]

Please...switch off the 700 club and watch some news once in a while.

I watched that show once and saw Pat Robertson claim he could leg press 1,000 pounds or something. (if i'm wrong on the amount of weight sorry)

Well of course. He has the POWER!

"JEBUS! Give me the STRENGTH to LEG PRESS this WEIGHT of SATAN! Allow me to push this HOLY weight without causing rectal prolapse or soiling my senior adult undergarments! Oh YeahYA!!!! I can feel the powerful holy steroids shrinking my hemorrhoids and the lords growth hormones coursing through my BODY! I suddenly feel the NEED to stop by the I-80 Rest Stop and relieve myself of this pressure! Perhaps I can save a few wayward SOULS whilst I am there! In YOUR NAME of course!

[comic boy]

I agree with WM, god post Blitz, I can't wait to see what they come up with against it.

Its Blitzeys viewpoint thats all - He sees beautiful things and would like to think they were created by a great artist rather than evolve slowly and rather boringly over time. It is based on a romantic ideal rather than any evidence just as all ideas of creationism are,just because you want something to be a certain way doesnt mean that your wish is fulfilled.

[Snorri1234]

Dude, the shape of the banana makes it obvious that God made it.

[Frigidus]

Dude, the shape of the banana makes it obvious that God made it.

Heheh, it would have been hilarious if someone tried that one. It pretty much provides its own counterpoint.

[heavycola]

not sure if this was said
but be realistic and intelligent about this
if you look closely at the world, space, stars, rainbows, valleys, etc
ask yourself do you see design?
meaning do you see shape, beauty, forms?
the answer is
YES of course
so if there is design, there must be a Designer, period, keep it simple guys and avoid arguing.
let me put it another way, if you saw a beautiful canvas painted of landscapes and lived on an island your whole life and knew nothing else.
is it more credible to believe the canvas happened by random time and chance over milllions of years? or that an artist went thru a lot to color this beautiful master piece?
may sound silly, but of course it is the artist, no different then the universe on a much larger scale
perhaps some of you may not know who that artist is, but much easier to belief an artist created that canvas then it evolving

Am i hopelessly naive, or do all internet discussions consist of people not reading what anyone else has written and just blowing their own load?

Anyway - blitzaholic you are using the teleological argument. Evidence of design invokes a designer. The guy who finds a pocket watch lying around in the forest sees its complexity and infers, correctly, that a watchmaker is involved.

But evolution is, very simply, a theory that explains the emergence of complexity without the need for a designer. It explains life in all its varieties and splendour and it does it in an elegant and stunningly beautiful way. Who needs a god to feel a sense of the numinous when evolution exists?

[unriggable]

not sure if this was said



but be realistic and intelligent about this


if you look closely at the world, space, stars, rainbows, valleys, etc



ask yourself do you see design?


meaning do you see shape, beauty, forms?


the answer is


YES of course


so if there is design, there must be a Designer, period, keep it simple guys and avoid arguing.



let me put it another way, if you saw a beautiful canvas painted of landscapes and lived on an island your whole life and knew nothing else.


is it more credible to believe the canvas happened by random time and chance over milllions of years? or that an artist went thru a lot to color this beautiful master piece?


may sound silly, but of course it is the artist, no different then the universe on a much larger scale


perhaps some of you may not know who that artist is, but much easier to belief an artist created that canvas then it evolving

Plato's allegory of the cave:

"Imagine prisoners, who have been chained since their childhood deep inside a cave: not only are their limbs immobilized by the chains; their heads are chained in one direction as well so that their gaze is fixed on a wall.

Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which puppets of various animals, plants, and other things are moved along. The puppets cast shadows on the wall, and the prisoners watch these shadows. When one of the puppet-carriers speaks, an echo against the wall causes the prisoners to believe that the words come from the shadows.

The prisoners engage in what appears to us to be a game: naming the shapes as they come by. This, however, is the only reality that they know, even though they are seeing merely shadows of images. They are thus conditioned to judge the quality of one another by their skill in quickly naming the shapes and dislike those who play poorly.

Suppose a prisoner is released and compelled to stand up and turn around. At that moment his eyes will be blinded by the sunlight coming into the cave from its entrance, and the shapes passing by will appear less real than their shadows.

The last object he would be able to see is the sun, which, in time, he would learn to see as the object that provides the seasons and the courses of the year, presides over all things in the visible region, and is in some way the cause of all these things that he has seen.

(This part of the allegory, incidentally, closely relates to Plato's metaphor of the sun which occurs near the end of The Republic, Book VI.)

Once enlightened, so to speak, the freed prisoner would not want to return to the cave to free "his fellow bondsmen," but would be compelled to do so. Another problem lies in the other prisoners not wanting to be freed: descending back into the cave would require that the freed prisoner's eyes adjust again, and for a time, he would be one of the ones identifying shapes on the wall. His eyes would be swamped by the darkness, and would take time to become acclimated. Therefore, he would not be able to identify the shapes on the wall as well as the other prisoners, making it seem as if his being taken to the surface completely ruined his eyesight. (The Republic bk. VII, 516b-c; trans. Paul Shorey)."

Wikipedia.

[Backglass]

Dude, the shape of the banana makes it obvious that God made it.

Yes..and the shape of Pineapple is obviously the work of SATAN.

DO NOT EAT SATANS FRUIT FOR IT WILL NOT FIT IN YOUR HAND!

not sure if this was said



but be realistic and intelligent about this



if you look closely at the world, space, stars, rainbows, valleys, etc



ask yourself do you see design?



meaning do you see shape, beauty, forms?



the answer is



YES of course

No...not really.



Just because something is beautiful does not mean it MUST have been created by a magical flying serpent in the sky.




That is hardly realistic OR intelligent. It is conforming the answer to fit the question.



You see what you want to see because of your programming.




I like to use multiple spaces too!

[Neoteny]

Man, Widow, you have as much of a problem with word vomit as I do... It'll take me a little bit to get back to you (I have tests in immunology and vertebrate phys today) but I have to respond to this:

For the purpose of this discussion:
EVOLUTION is that change from one species to another.

I realize you are using evolution to mean change from one species to another, but we have a specific term for that: speciation. Evolution really just means change over time. This is important because, on an evolutionary scale (regardless of if you think it's possible, just follow my reasoning, because it's logical either way), what is the difference between 2 species in the same lineage? An individual from species 1 could mate with its grandparent, who could mate with its grandparent, who could mate with its grandparent, etc all the way to species 2. The fact that species 1 and species 2 can't mate is an interesting problem posed to cladistics because of that relationship between the two species. Evolution tends to break down cladistics (at least as far as recent lineages go). So, when saying you want to see evidence for change in species, I highly recommend you ask for evidence for speciation, because evolution, like you said, is a very general term that can happen within a "species."

Saying that, I have a question for Widowmakers. You are asking us to give evidence for speciation. However, you have not given us a definition for a species. There are many, and your answer will be appropriate for my response.

[Neoteny]

Dude, the shape of the banana makes it obvious that God made it.

HA! You've seen/heard Ray Comfort too! I love that guy! I though he was a comedian at first...

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="WidowMakers"]
Creation Conclusion:
- It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism.
Hence Not Evolution!

TO ANSWER:
Your assumption is fundamentally flawed. That something is highly improbable does not in any way PROVE that it is impossible. The events you describe might be unlikely, but they are POSSIBLE.


However, I find it extremely strange that the definition of Creationism has recently changed from the idea that the Earth was created in 24 hours with an age of roughly 4000 years to suddenly include this idea called "Intelligent Design". Most of us who believe in both evolution and the Biblical creation have believed some variation of that theory .. and considered it evolution. To clarify, the vast majority believe that God created the Earth THROUGH evolution. Some believe that God is actually in there, more or less steering the whole process. Some believe that God set up the systems (predator/prey interactions, chemical process', mutation rates, etc. etc.) and then more or less "lets them be".

But individual thought aside, it is the nature of most scientists to question, reason and debate. The vast majority of individuals respect diversity of ideas. We welcome legitimate disagreement as a point of learning. Strangely, though the creationist debate too often seems to come down to points that simply cannot be argued or proved. They are, plain and simply, points of belief. The difficulty is that they are presented as fact... and with the idea that any disagreement is somehow against the Bible. This is simply not the truth. It is not that science is "out to get" or "opposed" to Creationist views, it is simply that these views lie outside the jurisdiction of science. Further, a very large number of those who believe in the Bible, do believe firmly in evolution -- including the Roman Catholic Church, most of the Main line Protestant churches ... and I believe many other churches of other types as well.

The real answer is to look for the "why" .. as in "why" was the context of this debate changed and "why is it being so strongly presented at this time?" I think you will find the answer lies well outside of religion.

[unriggable]

The problem with the iridium creationist conclusion is how wrong with facts it is. The reason scientists were able to pinpoint it to the crater we know today to be off the coast of the yucatan peninsula is because the amount gradually increases as we get closer, which is what we'd expect to see.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, no, my judgements are based mainly on his philosophy,which is farcical, and holds only a populist legitimacy, and yes, is best described as tortuous sophistry.

Oh good. You admit that you don't know what you're talking about. If you haven't read his science, you can't say it's bad science.

One difference between Dawkins and Haggard: Dawkins isn't a hypocrite. Yes, Dawkins is passionate about his opinions. Who isn't?

Thanks, Frigidus, for explaining that statement for Napoleon.

I agree with get tonkaed as far as education goes. I didn't receive any sort of teaching of evolution until an AP Bio class my senior year. If I hadn't taken that class, who knows what might have happened...

No but a few people have told me his science is overrated. To be honest that's irrelevant.
His philosophy is objectionnable not because I disagree with it but because it simply consists of poorly crafted, demagogic sophistry, not reasoned, valid arguments.

[unriggable]

His philosophy is objectionnable not because I disagree with it but because it simply consists of poorly crafted, demagogic sophistry, not reasoned, valid arguments.

Yep, a lot of it is the same argument as religion turned on its head. However, one argument I found particularly valid and compelling is the one about John Frum, and how just about any religion can be made that way.