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, 5:22 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
#31
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
You're having a discussion with a person who feels that separating environmental results from evolutionary results is a coherent position......
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
#32
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 12:51 pm)Sagasa Wrote: 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.

That's how I see it now. When I was a believer, we thought that evolutionary theory tried to impose some kind of order. For example, that a species that lived near water would develop a swimming apparatus because it was near water. That made it easy to mock the theory, but I think that we were working backwards, thinking about how evolution "works" as opposed to how evolution happens.

Someone in a topic here or elsewhere had pointed to the fact that humans are the only animals who are self-aware or who developed a higher intellect as a sign of a creator. But it's possible that throughout the history of the planet, other creatures were developing those same traits, but they died off before they could pass them along in a state that could be further developed into what humans have now. Maybe being able to express language wasn't as useful as razor-sharp talons. Maybe it was, but Thagg stumbled into a tar pit on his way to help the other cro-magnon men learn math. We'll never know... Wink
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
#33
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
Many people, due to being brought up in a culture in which our grammar has been influenced by our ancestors (or others) notions of "god" often interpret evolution as a replacement for that creative force, and then leverage language (both internally and externally) that serves to obfuscate and confuse their understanding of evolution. We talk about what evolution creates, how species are formed, how they are designed, how the fittest survive, or the hilarious notion that some things are more or less evolved - as though it were a ladder leading up to us. Subtle linguistic landmines. I can imagine that it would be even worse for someone who actively believes in [insert divine creative force here] to separate the tics of their language from the specifics of the subject.
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
#34
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 30, 2013 at 1:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're having a discussion with a person who feels that separating environmental results from evolutionary results is a coherent position......
No you're a moron. I was pointing out the fact that the environment that bats live in dictates how developed their eyes get. If you keep a human child in darkness for the first two years of their life - they will never, ever, be able to see. Eyesight isn't purely genetic, it's also environmental. The same is true of smell. We don't typically develop our sense of smell very far; but we could if the environment fostered it, and that requires (again) no change in genetics. If the behaviour of bats suddenly changed, and they were no longer nocturnal, then they'd be able to see. Evolution wouldn't have any work to do, because you only need the exact same animal in a different environment.

(March 30, 2013 at 12:51 pm)Sagasa Wrote: 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.
Aha, I see where you've gone wrong. You think that DNA mutations drive evolution. As I've pointed out, this theory has been tested for a good 30 years now. Most DNA mutations are unhelpful or harmful. DNA mutations alone are not a strong enough force to drive meaningful change in populations and achieve more structured, more complicated organisms. It simply isn't at the root of how evolution works.

Species has in fact evolved to be largely resilient of DNA change. Look at how many different characteristics we have as an example - height, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour... yet for your theory on Evolution to be correct only the most beneficial DNA mutations should have survived - all the other ones should have been squeezed out of the genome.
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
#35
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(March 31, 2013 at 12:18 am)Aractus Wrote: No you're a moron. I was pointing out the fact that the environment that bats live in dictates how developed their eyes get. If you keep a human child in darkness for the first two years of their life - they will never, ever, be able to see. Eyesight isn't purely genetic, it's also environmental.
Which would justify separating environmental from evolutionary precisely how? Uh-huh..... In that last sentence above....replace eyesight with evolution - jackass.

Quote:The same is true of smell. We don't typically develop our sense of smell very far; but we could if the environment fostered it, and that requires (again) no change in genetics. If the behaviour of bats suddenly changed, and they were no longer nocturnal, then they'd be able to see.
LOL, no better than they already can - they're not actually blind....to be able to see "better" would take some changes. It's not an issue of not using their eyes - they do, their eyes are chronically underdeveloped and their genetics do not promote said developement - and lets be honest, living at night is awfully conducive to well developed eyes (the "night-time environment" does "foster it")...I'm sure we can both think of a couple mammals with wonderful night-vision....it just doesn't provide enough to the bats, specifically, in the cost-benefit analysis that reproduction is always calculating. It's not an issue of walking outside in the light and -poof magic eyes-....what kind of absurd bullshit is this? But hey, I'm ready to be wrong. Go buy yourself a bat, and keep it in a lit cage 24/7 - see if it's eyesight improves, lets see how much better their eyes work compared to their fellows in the control? IOW, do science. I think it would be fantastic so see a bat leverage sight over echolocation in it's lifetime, for example....you'd probably get your name in a book somewhere for that one.....

Quote: Evolution wouldn't have any work to do, because you only need the exact same animal in a different environment.
And more well developed eyes...so yeah, evolution would have "work to do" as it always does.

The irony of this post being that it began by calling me a moron Jerkoff

But hey, don't let me stop you, continue, display your inexcusable ignorance for as long and as gloriously as you like.
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
#36
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
Quote:LOL, no better than they already can - they're not actually blind....to be able to see "better" would take some changes. It's not an issue of not using their eyes - they do, their eyes are chronically underdeveloped and their genetics do not promote said developement - and lets be honest, living at night is awfully conducive to well developed eyes (the "night-time environment" does "foster it")...I'm sure we can both think of a couple mammals with wonderful night-vision....
They'd be able to see *much* better if they were not nocturnal and living in caves. I'm not claiming that their night-vision would improve greatly - it wouldn't, nor am I claiming they'd be able to see as well as certain other mammals. Their brains - our brains - all brains get wired for processing eyesight as the animal develops and learns. Our brains are learning organisms that wire themselves accordingly.

Cats, for instance, can see very well at night - yet they can't digest their own fur! This is another example of that lingering "panda principle", all cats swallow their own fur, so why can't they digest the fur?
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
#37
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
Bats can already see in daylight. Some bats actually rely on their sight and live daylight lives. They have wholly different eyes than their nocturnal cousins. It's not just the software, it's the hardware too.

Yes, cats can see very well at night - why can't bats? You do realize that your comment about cats and their fur explains - in a very dramatic way- why you're ignorant remarks about bats and their eyes are so laughable, right? Cats do end up ingesting alot of fur - but they don't get better at digesting it just because this happens. Nocturnal bats -can- see, they do use their eyes at night, but they don't get any better at it just because they do. Similarly, some megachiroptera have wonderful eyesight - they can even see in color, but they still won't fly on a dark night.

I'd like to remind you, since we're doing the normal meandering, that this all began as you attempted to separate environmental from evolutionary. I'm still waiting to hear back on that one - but I'm happy to drive forward and clear up any other misconceptions you have about the subject (which look to be massive) as well.

The particular trouble you seem to be having here, is that you've somehow incorrectly identified a bats nocturnal lifestyle as -the reason- that their eyes did not develop like say - our eyes (or more mysteriously, the cats eyes). You seem to be of the opinion that doing something a whole lot fuels adaptation. Again, both bats and cats do a their thing at night - one has wonderfully developed night vision - the other does not. You seem to think that being able to see better is a simple issue of say -turning on a light-. The notion that bats would be able to see better if they just had a candle in their caves is ridiculous. They would be able to see no better than their biology already allows, no better than they already can - in other words...they wouldn't be able to see any better at all. It's a biological barrier. It's not uniform, because some bats -do- have well developed eyes.....you've put the cart before the horse. The bats with well developed sight have this characteristic not because living a daylight life makes their eyes "work better", but because having well developed eyes allows them to live more successful daylight lives.

To put this a simpler way - in case you still don't understand- no amount of climbing trees will turn you into a chimpanzee - and that's what we're talking about with regards to nocturnal or diurnal bats, and their respective eyesight. Two species in the same order.
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
#38
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: 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.

Define complicated. If you cannot define it you have no idea what you are saying.

(March 30, 2013 at 8:51 am)Aractus Wrote: 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.

Define complicated.

Evolution exists in the fact that all the children of the same parents are different. Nothing could be more obvious.

(March 31, 2013 at 12:18 am)Aractus Wrote:
(March 30, 2013 at 1:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're having a discussion with a person who feels that separating environmental results from evolutionary results is a coherent position......
No you're a moron.
...

Define complicated.
Reply
#39
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
You know if you put a ball at the top of a hill, a "force" we call "gravity" (it's not actually a force but it behaves like one) causes the ball to roll down the hill.

I think of evolution in much the same way. Evolution is a "force" which creates: diversity, complexity, structure, meaningful change. These characteristics aren't an accident and are not based on probability, they are as integral to evolution as a ball rolling down a hill is to gravity.

And FYI Matt, I'm done with playing your games. You want an intelligent discussion, then that's what you bring, you don't come and make demands on me while at the same time proving that you cannot offer the same quality of discussion that you demand from others. If you had a shred of integrity you'd present your own definition of complexity and then ask if I agree with it. Not demand that I give it to you.
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
#40
RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
(April 10, 2013 at 7:16 am)Aractus Wrote: I think of evolution in much the same way. Evolution is a "force" which creates: diversity, complexity, structure, meaningful change. These characteristics aren't an accident and are not based on probability, they are as integral to evolution as a ball rolling down a hill is to gravity.

This isn't always true, though. Evolution can be a reductive process too. To take a relatively simple example, the human little toe has shrunk down as the way our feet balance weight has changed. The number of toes hasn't changed, but one is dwindling, and in fact the last two phalanges in our feet are usually fused together, as opposed to the more mobile unfused variety found in other ape and primate species. Now, this all still has a use for our particular kind of locomotion, but it's still an evolutionary change that removes something, rather than grants something new.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] A Literal Bible. Answering questions Green Diogenes 101 6288 May 10, 2022 at 11:14 am
Last Post: Jehanne
  Interpretation of scripture Foxaèr 51 6727 September 6, 2021 at 11:51 am
Last Post: Spongebob
  [Serious] Literal and Not Literal Belacqua 440 45000 December 23, 2019 at 12:42 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Genesis 26:8 Fake Messiah 20 2355 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 5182 July 10, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: Jesster
  Margaret Court -another moron. ignoramus 13 3861 June 25, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Last Post: Astonished
  Liberalism's Great Challenge? Minimalist 20 3258 September 10, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Last Post: Jehanne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)