Quote: I feel you are kind of cheating here by creating a false distinction. If you are a naturalist, which I believe you are, you cannot make a distinction between physical capacity & abilities and mental capacity & abilities as you have done here.

I don't feel I did made any distinction (let alone a false one) between the two. I explained how certain mental abilities would be required to learn/develop calculus (And in my first post, language), and how they allow for calculus, rather than calculus being the ability selected for. Never did I compare or contrast mental abilities/capacity to physical abilities/capacity, I never even really touched on physical abilities whatsoever.

Actually, the same would go for specific physical abilities.

Quote: Evolutionally animals could not gain the physical ability to do something that is not providing a survival advantage. Since mental ability is determined by the chemical interactions in the brain (from a naturalistic perspective) this cannot be an exception to the observed rule. Humans’ mental ability to do something and actually doing that very thing would have to occur simultaneously according to Darwinian Theory.

Linking back to you're original example of music, lets talk about physically playing a particular musical instrument, lets take the piano (or substitute any instrument you want).

Natural selection wasn't selecting for piano playing. What allows us to physically play a piano is a number of broad physical abilities. The ability to sit down as we can, fine motor control, the ability to flex and extend our arms in the manner required, arguably some combination of senses (touch, hearing, vision, proprioception...), and others. All of which are used in other activities and could conceivably be naturally, or artificially, selected for.

No-one is going to argue that natural selection selected for piano playing specifically (Now I have the image in my mind of a bunch of cavemen in tuxedos competitively playing their pianos to attract the females =P, it amuses me). It selected for physical attributes that when put together happen to allow us to play a piano.

Calculus. We have the following: Creativity, the ability to learn, memory, attention, intellect... All of these together allow the learning and invention of calculus. I'm not going to argue that calculus or physically being able to play a piano was selected for, but those broader abilities and attributes that allow for calculus and physically playing a piano, would have been.



*obviously there are also mental abilities that are needed to play pianos, but the point was about physical capabilities and how the broad attributes, such as bending/controlling limbs in a particular way allow us to do many different things, things which aren't necessarily themselves individually selected for, or selected for at all.

(October 24, 2011 at 6:36 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Please point to an article from the Journal of Creation that explicitly says "God Did It". I could reduce every article you present to "Evolution Did it" if you really want to play that game.

So, business as usual then? If a creation journal doesn't explicitly state that god did it, in what way is it a creation journal? Ah yes, in no way. You could attempt to reduce any argument to "evolution did it" (which you do) but this argument is entirely dependent on your own misunderstanding of the process and your ability to create misleading and deceitful arguments. Mostly because you're a bold faced and unapologetic liar.

(October 24, 2011 at 6:15 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sorry, this is incorrect. Speciation can occur very quickly, we just don’t observe any changes happening amongst people for the last supposed 50,000 years.

You are so very wrong. Lactose tolerance has only evolved as recently as within the last 3000 year.

http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol4n1/genome.xml

Quote:While skeptics argue that humans have hit an evolutionary peak and that our culture, medicine and technology have solidified our lack of need for continual evolution, it is medicine and culture that help to solidify continual evolution of the human genome. Culture has been responsible for the evolution agricultural dairying and lactase persistence, responsible for an increase in malaria, thus the evolution of sickle-cell trait, can be said to be a main reason for the rapid spread of HIV, thus is responsible for the evolution of HIV combatant alleles, and is responsible for populations' migration to high altitudes, thus responsible for in increase in high oxygen saturation of hemoglobin. These examples suggest that modern humans remain in a state of constant evolution as a result of common mutation, natural selection, new endemic diseases, and our own cultural influences.

Anyhoo when did you agree that thre was a 50,000 years ago?
I thought you were a young earth creationist!

Not to mention our tolerance for grain crops etc. He doesn't agree, apparently everything began a few thousand years back, and he wonders why no one takes him seriously.

Wait, I knew stat was a Creationist, but a YEC? He actually has the nerve to be such a high and mighty prick whilst believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Jesus fucking christ, this really goes to show how much time we have all wasted.

He's a prick regardless, though his superstitions add to the overall shit pie.

(October 24, 2011 at 7:03 pm)IATIA Wrote: The lines drawn in evolution are based on the scarce amount of fossils that we have available. That any are available is mostly luck. Evolutionists have drawn an arbitrary line based on the lifestyle of man. i.e., tool making in this case.

So are you saying that you don’t know the answer to my question? Or are you saying that there was no distinction between the parents of the first Homo Sapien and that Homo Sapien?

(October 25, 2011 at 4:51 am)Stue Denim Wrote: I don't feel I did made any distinction (let alone a false one) between the two. I explained how certain mental abilities would be required to learn/develop calculus (And in my first post, language), and how they allow for calculus, rather than calculus being the ability selected for.

That’s the whole point though, according to Darwinian Theory the only way the ability to do calculus could arise is if it were selected for. However, it appears the ability to do calculus was present thousands of years before it was ever selected for. It doesn’t add up.

Quote: I never even really touched on physical abilities whatsoever.

Well you did actually because only the theist can draw a distinction between mental ability and physical ability. The two are the same in a naturalistic world.

Quote: Natural selection wasn't selecting for piano playing. What allows us to physically play a piano is a number of broad physical abilities. The ability to sit down as we can, fine motor control, the ability to flex and extend our arms in the manner required, arguably some combination of senses (touch, hearing, vision, proprioception...), and others. All of which are used in other activities and could conceivably be naturally, or artificially, selected for.

I don’t agree with you one hundred percent here, how could a musical ear and a mental conception of music be selected for in some other activity? Humans’ ability to play music makes far more sense in the Christian worldview than it does in a Darwinian one.

Quote: No-one is going to argue that natural selection selected for piano playing specifically (Now I have the image in my mind of a bunch of cavemen in tuxedos competitively playing their pianos to attract the females =P, it amuses me). It selected for physical attributes that when put together happen to allow us to play a piano.

I get where you are coming from and it is an interesting topic, but again if a person does not have a musical ear and mind they can pound the keys all they want but it won’t be considered playing the piano. Chimps have the physical ability to play the keys of a piano but they do not have the ability to “play” the piano. Why not?

Quote: *obviously there are also mental abilities that are needed to play pianos, but the point was about physical capabilities and how the broad attributes, such as bending/controlling limbs in a particular way allow us to do many different things, things which aren't necessarily themselves individually selected for, or selected for at all.

Yeah, I read this part of your post after I had posted what was above. It does bring up another interesting point though. Evolutionarily how do you explain the fact that not only does an organism have to develop a new physical structure, but it also has to develop the mental ability to use that new structure, how does this happen? Is it simultaneous or does one come before the other?

(October 25, 2011 at 11:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: So, business as usual then? If a creation journal doesn't explicitly state that god did it, in what way is it a creation journal? Ah yes, in no way. You could attempt to reduce any argument to "evolution did it" (which you do) but this argument is entirely dependent on your own misunderstanding of the process and your ability to create misleading and deceitful arguments. Mostly because you're a bold faced and unapologetic liar.

I love it when I can use your own absurd arguments against you….here it goes…
“So, business as usual then? If an Evolution journal doesn't explicitly state that Evolution did it, in what way is it an Evolution journal? Ah yes, in no way. You could attempt to reduce any argument to "God did it" (which you do) but this argument is entirely dependent on your own misunderstanding of the creation model and your ability to create misleading and deceitful arguments. Mostly because you're a bold faced and unapologetic dying liar. (I am fully aware that the last piece is not a complete sentence, but I decided it would be fun to keep your own poor grammar in the quote)”

That was fun!

(October 25, 2011 at 2:07 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You are so very wrong. Lactose tolerance has only evolved as recently as within the last 3000 year.

Lactose intolerance is a corruption of the original design that results in a reduction of genetic information, it is a hardship for the majority of people who have it and cannot be said to be “evolution in action.”

Quote: Anyhoo when did you agree that thre was a 50,000 years ago?
I thought you were a young earth creationist!

I don’t believe in the timeline, I am just using it to play along and poke holes in the theory.

(October 25, 2011 at 2:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not to mention our tolerance for grain crops etc. He doesn't agree, apparently everything began a few thousand years back, and he wonders why no one takes him seriously.

Aboriginal people can tolerate grain crops just as well as anyone else and they don't use them, so your point was easy enough to refute.

(October 25, 2011 at 2:26 pm)Shell B Wrote: Wait, I knew stat was a Creationist, but a YEC? He actually has the nerve to be such a high and mighty prick whilst believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Jesus fucking christ, this really goes to show how much time we have all wasted.

Have you personally dated the Earth Shell? I doubt it.

(October 25, 2011 at 2:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: He's a prick regardless, though his superstitions add to the overall shit pie.

Personal attacks are so lame, but hey if they are all you’ve got….Lord knows you haven't come close to defending your position on here.

(October 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: However, it appears the ability to do calculus was present thousands of years before it was ever selected for. It doesn’t add up.

That's very funny

(October 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Have you personally dated the Earth Shell? I doubt it.

It's funny that is the position you take when you are asserting the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Have you personally dated the Earth, Stat? Have you so much as considered the age of the Earth past what other Creationists have spoon fed you? Doubt it, precious.

Think he gave you an answer. You don't like it?

According to darwinian theory- bullshit.

Yeah, and apples and oranges are the same too. Sorry, the only people who have trouble with identity are you godly types. We don't have triune demi gods and whatnot.

Aside from the fact that absolutely nothing makes sense from your worldview, I'd love to hear you explain this one away. Can you flesh this idea out without deferring to "goddidit"?

Are you any better at playing the piano than a chimp, personally? Why not? (or why so, depending)

How do you explain anything?

Yes evolution journals explain evolution, as much as creation journals explain creation. The difference is that one has the backing of verifiable science, the other is a sad attempt to prop up a sagging fairy tale. I stand corrected-god didn't do it. Thank you for clearing that up, appears we're on the same page.

Show the "original design" please.

Your belief is irrelevant, the timeline is what it is. You aren't poking holes in anything. Only displaying a nearly unbelievable amount of ignorance.

Perhaps your ignorance regarding the timeline led you to believe that you refuted something. You didn't.

Have you personally met the creator? Doubt it.

I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstand, I'm plainly stating that your arguments are facetious, and that you, as their proponent, are engaging in willful deception. "You're a liar" is a blanket statement like that.