Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:47 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
#21
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 26, 2013 at 4:12 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: The Creationists just won't go away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar...-evolution

I suppose getting their asses kicked in a real courtroom in the Dover trial wasn't good enough.

A sucker bet. It says prove a negative. That cannot be done. Therefore it cannot be won.

(March 28, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Aractus Wrote:
(March 26, 2013 at 4:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: He thinks that evolution has a direction!
Evolution does have a direction. Simple --> More Complicated. It doesn't go the other way...

Define complicated.

Animals that take to living in caves tend to lose there eyes. Is that more or less complicated? Please refer to the definition you have provided in answering.

As scientists who specialize in evolution say there is no direction upon what basis do you say there is? When will you publish to claim your Nobel Prize?
Reply
#22
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 28, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Aractus Wrote:
(March 26, 2013 at 4:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: He thinks that evolution has a direction!
Evolution does have a direction. Simple --> More Complicated. It doesn't go the other way...

It can do.
If simpler holds a survival advantage then that is exactly what it would do.
Wink Shades



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#23
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 29, 2013 at 2:11 am)Sagasa Wrote: But it's not equal. It's not a 50/50 chance that a species would evolve to be either more complex or simpler, it depends on the pressures that the environment puts on the species and thus, only the ones that are able to adapt best will be able reproduce.

Kind of like how the snakes lost their legs when they didn't need them anymore, or other examples of unneeded appendages withering away.
No. What your say makes about as much sense as theorizing that entropy has a 50% chance of creating randomness when crystallization occurs. Crystallization ignores entropy, it is ordered - order is created from chaos. The rules that might normally apply outside of it don't apply to it. The same is true for evolution. Evolution is about "building". You can't build something big if you're always expending all your resources rebuilding your structure. Thus while it may play a *role* in evolution it isn't the process and it is only minor compared to the overall process.

(March 29, 2013 at 4:52 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Define complicated.

Animals that take to living in caves tend to lose there eyes. Is that more or less complicated? Please refer to the definition you have provided in answering.
If you're referring to bats you're wrong. Bats can see during the day, and could see quite well if not for the fact that they're nocturnal. Thus their poor eyesight is an environmental result - not an evolutionary one. Their eyes don't fully develop because they live in the dark. It has nothing to do with the fact that evolution took their eyesight away.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK

The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK


"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Reply
#24
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 3:57 am)Aractus Wrote:
(March 29, 2013 at 4:52 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Define complicated.

Animals that take to living in caves tend to lose there eyes. Is that more or less complicated? Please refer to the definition you have provided in answering.
If you're referring to bats you're wrong. Bats can see during the day, and could see quite well if not for the fact that they're nocturnal. Thus their poor eyesight is an environmental result - not an evolutionary one. Their eyes don't fully develop because they live in the dark. It has nothing to do with the fact that evolution took their eyesight away.

Bats sleep in caves not live in them. Plain English.

Define complicated. If you cannot define complicated then your claim is bullshit as you use a word which you cannot define.
Reply
#25
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
I don't know why your arguing with me. Evolution is a developmental process. It requires "building" and "growing" generation to generation. It is organized. It creates order. It isn't a swap-and-change process, it's a building process, a growing process, a process that requires that complexity arises from simplicity. You start with a simple organism and through evolution you get a complicated organism with organized features. In fact - you get many complicated, organized organisms.

Your definition of evolution is meaningless, it's futile, if it's not directional - if it doesn't go anywhere - if it doesn't result in slowly but surely building large complicated creatures with many features - rather than simple organisms with no features - then it isn't evolution, is it? What side are you on? The creationist side?
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK

The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK


"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Reply
#26
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 7:30 am)Aractus Wrote: I don't know why your arguing with me. Evolution is a developmental process. It requires "building" and "growing" generation to generation. It is organized. It creates order. It isn't a swap-and-change process, it's a building process, a growing process, a process that requires that complexity arises from simplicity.

I can see from this statement that you have a basic missunderstanding of evolution.

Quote: You start with a simple organism and through evolution you get a complicated organism with organized features. In fact - you get many complicated, organized organisms.

You can do, Evolution is the only mechanism in nature that can achieve that BUT evolution does not have to go from less complex to more complex. Birds lose the power of flight fish in darkness lose eyes. If it doesn't impart a survival advantage then those complex features can and do wither and disappear.

The process of natural selection cares not for the improvement into more complex forms, just for what imparts an advantage at the time.
Sometimes this means better eyes, sometimes it means simpler is better.

Quote:Your definition of evolution is meaningless, it's futile, if it's not directional - if it doesn't go anywhere - if it doesn't result in slowly but surely building large complicated creatures with many features - rather than simple organisms with no features - then it isn't evolution, is it?

I'm afraid that you are completely wrong, evolution cares not for the advancement of the species it only operates on works at the time and that means adapting to current conditions whatever they may be. Nothing more, it is a simple system that has complex results but HAS NO DIRECTION.

You seem to think that there is some sort of intelligence behind evolution that wants life to "get better" sorry to disalusion you but that is not what happens.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#27
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 8:07 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I can see from this statement that you have a basic misunderstanding of evolution.
Absolute nonsense and I reject that ...
Quote:You can do, Evolution is the only mechanism in nature that can achieve that BUT evolution does not have to go from less complex to more complex. Birds lose the power of flight fish in darkness lose eyes. If it doesn't impart a survival advantage then those complex features can and do wither and disappear.
You are incorrect. Perhaps you've heard of the "Panda Principle". The idea that once something has developed to the point of being "good enough" in an environment where competition is lax, evolution gets lazy and doesn't improve the feature. This is not only true for Pandas, but often Cuckoo birds as well. While some Cuckoos lay eggs that are pretty close match in appearance to the host that they're fooling - others lay eggs that look nothing like the eggs that the host birds lay, but Cuckoos get away with those eggs in fact more than the "more evolved" ones simply because they're "good enough". This doesn't mean that a feature will necessarily wither away - and in fact, it certainly means the feature shouldn't wither away.

But this is besides the point. You are looking only at microevolution. You need to look at the big picture, it is the big picture where we see clear patterns form. And what the big picture tells us is that Evolution drives towards - not away from - more complicated organisms with more features.
Quote:I'm afraid that you are completely wrong, evolution cares not for the advancement of the species it only operates on works at the time and that means adapting to current conditions whatever they may be. Nothing more, it is a simple system that has complex results but HAS NO DIRECTION.
No, that's totally wrong. You've been taught incorrectly I'm afraid. You are moving away from the observation of Evolution and into the theoretical side of it. What your presenting is a theory on how evolution works. And guess what? The theory has been tested, and has not had confirming evidence. Evolution requires a strong driving force, not a weak one. One that is in fact resilient to change, even though it adopts it where it's beneficial.

Most DNA mutations, for instance, are unhelpful. They play no role in evolution - they can't because they're unhelpful!
Quote:You seem to think that there is some sort of intelligence behind evolution that wants life to "get better" sorry to disillusion you but that is not what happens.
Don't put words into my mouth. Did you hear me claim that there is intelligence behind crystallography? Crystals are a non-organic structure. Evolution is a biological structure. You have the theory backwards, out of date, disproven I'm afraid.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK

The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK


"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Reply
#28
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 8:51 am)Aractus Wrote:
(March 30, 2013 at 8:07 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I can see from this statement that you have a basic misunderstanding of evolution.
Absolute nonsense and I reject that ...
Quote:You can do, Evolution is the only mechanism in nature that can achieve that BUT evolution does not have to go from less complex to more complex. Birds lose the power of flight fish in darkness lose eyes. If it doesn't impart a survival advantage then those complex features can and do wither and disappear.
You are incorrect. Perhaps you've heard of the "Panda Principle". The idea that once something has developed to the point of being "good enough" in an environment where competition is lax, evolution gets lazy and doesn't improve the feature. This is not only true for Pandas, but often Cuckoo birds as well. While some Cuckoos lay eggs that are pretty close match in appearance to the host that they're fooling - others lay eggs that look nothing like the eggs that the host birds lay, but Cuckoos get away with those eggs in fact more than the "more evolved" ones simply because they're "good enough". This doesn't mean that a feature will necessarily wither away - and in fact, it certainly means the feature shouldn't wither away.

But this is besides the point. You are looking only at microevolution. You need to look at the big picture, it is the big picture where we see clear patterns form. And what the big picture tells us is that Evolution drives towards - not away from - more complicated organisms with more features.
Quote:I'm afraid that you are completely wrong, evolution cares not for the advancement of the species it only operates on works at the time and that means adapting to current conditions whatever they may be. Nothing more, it is a simple system that has complex results but HAS NO DIRECTION.
No, that's totally wrong. You've been taught incorrectly I'm afraid. You are moving away from the observation of Evolution and into the theoretical side of it. What your presenting is a theory on how evolution works. And guess what? The theory has been tested, and has not had confirming evidence. Evolution requires a strong driving force, not a weak one. One that is in fact resilient to change, even though it adopts it where it's beneficial.

Most DNA mutations, for instance, are unhelpful. They play no role in evolution - they can't because they're unhelpful!
Quote:You seem to think that there is some sort of intelligence behind evolution that wants life to "get better" sorry to disillusion you but that is not what happens.
Don't put words into my mouth. Did you hear me claim that there is intelligence behind crystallography? Crystals are a non-organic structure. Evolution is a biological structure. You have the theory backwards, out of date, disproven I'm afraid.

Your insistence on an evolutionary direction implied intelligent oversight and I have to reiterate that evolution has no direction.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_artic...-evolution

Quote:But evolution is, as far as we can tell, purposeless and unguided. There seems to be no direction, mutations are random, and we haven’t detected a teleological force or agent that pushes it in one direction. And it’s important to realize this: the great importance of Darwin’s theory of natural selection is that an unguided, purposeless process can nevertheless produce animals and plants that are exquisitely adapted to their environment. That’s why it’s called natural selection, not supernatural selection or simply selection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_o...complexity

Quote:Nowadays, this idea of "progression" in evolution is regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[4] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#29
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 3:57 am)Aractus Wrote: If you're referring to bats you're wrong. Bats can see during the day, and could see quite well if not for the fact that they're nocturnal. Thus their poor eyesight is an environmental result - not an evolutionary one. Their eyes don't fully develop because they live in the dark. It has nothing to do with the fact that evolution took their eyesight away.

..................................................
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#30
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 3:57 am)Aractus Wrote: No. What your say makes about as much sense as theorizing that entropy has a 50% chance of creating randomness when crystallization occurs. Crystallization ignores entropy, it is ordered - order is created from chaos. The rules that might normally apply outside of it don't apply to it. The same is true for evolution. Evolution is about "building". You can't build something big if you're always expending all your resources rebuilding your structure. Thus while it may play a *role* in evolution it isn't the process and it is only minor compared to the overall process.

But I'm not saying that it's a 50 percent chance.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point here, but it seems to me that what you're saying is that every time a species evolves, something gets added to them that increases their complexity; they evolve eyes, more complex means of locomotion, intelligence, etc. Is that right?

But evolution is just change. An organism suddenly mutates in a small way; maybe it's beneficial, maybe it's harmful, maybe it's benign. Maybe a small burrowing rodent is born with a defect: non-functioning eyes. Since it lives by burrowing into the ground, it doesn't need its eyes that much in order to survive and propagate, and may even derive a small benefit from them. Thus, succeeding generations from that rat will also have a tendency to be born with non-functioning eyes until the organ withers away. That's still evolution, even though it prunes away unneeded appendages and reduces the complexity of the organism.

Unless of course you have a different definition of complexity.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] A Literal Bible. Answering questions Green Diogenes 101 6295 May 10, 2022 at 11:14 am
Last Post: Jehanne
  Interpretation of scripture Foxaèr 51 6733 September 6, 2021 at 11:51 am
Last Post: Spongebob
  [Serious] Literal and Not Literal Belacqua 440 45009 December 23, 2019 at 12:42 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Genesis 26:8 Fake Messiah 20 2357 January 22, 2019 at 1:20 pm
Last Post: Drich
  A critical thinking challenge Foxaèr 18 4193 June 15, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Last Post: Drich
  A challenge to anyone I guess! Mystic 27 5075 June 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Last Post: Mystic
  Christian genesis notimportant1234 45 15921 October 16, 2017 at 11:44 am
Last Post: Harry Nevis
  Should Theists have the burden of proof at the police and court? Vast Vision 16 5183 July 10, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: Jesster
  Margaret Court -another moron. ignoramus 13 3862 June 25, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Last Post: Astonished
  Liberalism's Great Challenge? Minimalist 20 3259 September 10, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Last Post: Jehanne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)