(February 4, 2014 at 12:54 am)Carnavon Wrote: Great post but for the lack of evidence presented.

Neener, neener little boy. Neener, neener.

As if on cue just when we began to expect theists to be forthright you come along to remind us just how bad are the apples are at the bottom of the barrel. Okay, you can go now. You've done your part. Indeed Christians can be total assholes. Point taken.

(February 3, 2014 at 7:08 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(February 3, 2014 at 5:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote: yes, but the Earth is big. The Sun is waaaaaayyyy bigger!
This seems like the simplest way to explain to simple minds how they have been deceived.

If I talk about organisms, it just makes them go back to saying that it's the evolution of these organisms that's causing negative entropy and they'll never get that this evolution is a part of a much greater system.

Their logic confounds me because they don't even protest micro-evolution, yet if entropy applies to organisms at all this is precisely what it would limit. There is macro-evolution because there is micro-evolution. Speciation occurs within the micro-evolution of two split populations whose genes have different environmental pressures to meet.

Nope. Micro evolution happens within a specie (wolves, horses) and that is everywhere to see - in contrast to macro evolution which supposedly creates completely new species but lacking transitional fossils and it being observed today.
Jeffrey Schwartz, a Leading evolutionist, has recently stated it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

So even the fruit fly remains a fruit fly, my friend, despite variations.
But I am sure that no argument will convince you. The best we can do (as the evolution debate has been going on for many years - not only between interested laymen, but between highly qualified individuals - on both sides of the issue) is to assess information as objectively as possible.

I do not understand all the technical jargon, but fortunately there are chaps that understand it well enough to explain it in layman's terms and what I do understand is that the matter is all but settled.
So from my point of view, there is sufficient evidence to logically hold onto a position that does not accept evolution.

Even if I could convince you that Christianity agrees more with what we observe than being an atheist that believes in evolution, it will be of no avail. Real Christianity is about realising how bad our lives really look (morally) and in need of forgiveness, turn to the One that promises forgiveness of all the bad stuff me and you have done.
Came to think of it after somebody commented on the great number of different "interpretations" of the Bible - all claiming to be right. It just struck me that atheism is similar - its approach to the Bible is based on a specific interpretation of it and more particularly the approach that "it is wrong"’ or a myth. This is similar to for instance the "prosperity gospel" which seeks out verses to substantiate their claims.
The only way to evaluate the Bible objectively is to read it/listen to the Word. It is suggested that, if you should do that, stick to expository preaching and not topical. With topical, it is easy to "sneak in" just the passages that agrees with your view. With expository, you have to deal with all that is written there.
I do not judge you or anybody that believes evolution is true. I am one hundred percent convinced that the Bible is true and God will honour his word to every person on earth :
Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Cheers for now.

OK he's started spouting bible verses now. It was fun when he was being ridiculous but now its time for him to go.

(February 4, 2014 at 2:35 am)whateverist Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 12:54 am)Carnavon Wrote: Great post but for the lack of evidence presented.

Neener, neener little boy. Neener, neener.

As if on cue just when we began to expect theists to be forthright you come along to remind us just how bad are the apples are at the bottom of the barrel. Okay, you can go now. You've done your part. Indeed Christians can be total assholes. Point taken.

Sorry to disappoint. Well, it takes all kinds as you know. I know some great guys who are Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Hindus etc but there are also persons of the same persuasions that are a bit difficult to get along with.
Luckily for all of us Jesus died for even the worst sinner with no merit of his/her own and he/she may even be despised (most likely will be) by the world. (See some of the comments here to prove this)

---

(February 4, 2014 at 3:46 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: OK he's started spouting bible verses now. It was fun when he was being ridiculous but now its time for him to go.

I really enjoy you! And that is not being sarcastic. Of course I will be spouting Bible verses - as I am a Christian and the hope I have for you and me is based on the promises that God made- and I would like to share it with you. As with anything else, you can take it or leave it.
Have a really fantastic day
I don't think you are a "Bad Wolf" at all!

Carnavon, how old do you think the Earth is? Can you amuse us and explain how molecular biology and palaentology, among other sciences, conclude the following:
Simple cells (prokaryotes) appeared 3.6 billion years ago;
cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis appeared 3.4 billion years ago;
2 billion years ago--complex cells (eukaryotes) appeared;
1 billion years ago--multicellular life;
600 million years--simple animals;
550 million years--bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
500 million years--fish and proto-amphibians;
475 million years--land plants;
400 million years--insects and seeds;
360 million years--amphibians;
300 million years--reptiles;
200 million years--mammals;
150 million years--birds;
130 million years--flowers;
60 million years--the primates;
20 million years--the family Hominidae (great apes);
2.5 million years--the genus Homo (human predecessors);
200,000 years--anatomically modern humans.

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: Nope. Micro evolution happens within a specie (wolves, horses) and that is everywhere to see - in contrast to macro evolution which supposedly creates completely new species but lacking transitional fossils and it being observed today.

I posted a list of transitional forms that was huge, just one page back. Ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.

Quote:Jeffrey Schwartz, a Leading evolutionist, has recently stated it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Flavobacteria. Silver foxes. Dog breeds.

Incidentally, the kind of drastic change you're (dishonestly) looking for can't happen, because it requires successive "micro-evolutionary" changes over many many generations. You're saying that it's impossible because you've never seen it happen, but that's because the timescales involved- something you'd know about if you'd bothered doing any research- are immense.

Hence we look to the fossil record which, as my link shows, is loaded for bear with transitional fossils. Game over.

Quote:So even the fruit fly remains a fruit fly, my friend, despite variations.

Yet more reason to believe that you don't actually know what the hell you're talking about; of course it remains a fruit fly, the kinds of changes you're looking for take much longer than you want it to. However, we do have a different species of fruit fly resulting, so... you're just factually wrong, here.

And don't even start with that "kind" bullshit again.

Quote:But I am sure that no argument will convince you. The best we can do (as the evolution debate has been going on for many years - not only between interested laymen, but between highly qualified individuals - on both sides of the issue) is to assess information as objectively as possible.

There is no evolution debate: there are the scientists, who actually know what they're talking about, who almost uniformly accept evolution, and there are creationists, who don't have any education at all, promulgating arguments from ignorance in favor of a position they have developed for ideological reasons, and not fact based ones.

Quote:I do not understand all the technical jargon, but fortunately there are chaps that understand it well enough to explain it in layman's terms and what I do understand is that the matter is all but settled.
So from my point of view, there is sufficient evidence to logically hold onto a position that does not accept evolution.

You are wrong, and as I've shown repeatedly, the places you're getting your information from are [i]also wrong.

Quote:Even if I could convince you that Christianity agrees more with what we observe than being an atheist that believes in evolution, it will be of no avail. Real Christianity is about realising how bad our lives really look (morally) and in need of forgiveness, turn to the One that promises forgiveness of all the bad stuff me and you have done.
Came to think of it after somebody commented on the great number of different "interpretations" of the Bible - all claiming to be right. It just struck me that atheism is similar - its approach to the Bible is based on a specific interpretation of it and more particularly the approach that "it is wrong"’ or a myth. This is similar to for instance the "prosperity gospel" which seeks out verses to substantiate their claims.
The only way to evaluate the Bible objectively is to read it/listen to the Word. It is suggested that, if you should do that, stick to expository preaching and not topical. With topical, it is easy to "sneak in" just the passages that agrees with your view. With expository, you have to deal with all that is written there.
I do not judge you or anybody that believes evolution is true. I am one hundred percent convinced that the Bible is true and God will honour his word to every person on earth :
Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Cheers for now.

And then we get to preaching, a sure fire sign that the preacher knows but won't admit that they've completely lost the argument on factual grounds.

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: Micro evolution happens within a specie (wolves, horses) and that is everywhere to see - in contrast to macro evolution which supposedly creates completely new species but lacking transitional fossils and it being observed today.

Oh, this is precious.
"lacking transitional fossils", huh? What were those that Esq linked a few posts back?
"Oh, you're missing the transitions between all those he posted", am I right? -.-'

The process of fossilization is rare... of all the hundreds of millions of people who have lived on this planet, how many naturally fossilized humans have been found? (let's not count mummies and other forms of proper burials).

Of the bajillions of insects that inhabit this planet... how many fossils have been found?

The rarity of fossilization means that you only get a few snapshots of past life... it's not a moving picture... but hard working paleontologists are trying to make it look like stop-motion and that's what we, laypeople, have today.
You want Live action at 200fps, but reality can only provide rock figures at 10fps.
Your requirement is shown to be ludicrous, but you still press on. Go lunacy!

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: Jeffrey Schwartz, a Leading evolutionist, has recently stated it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

So even the fruit fly remains a fruit fly, my friend, despite variations.

Aye, and what we call human remains an ape, despite variations.

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: But I am sure that no argument will convince you. The best we can do (as the evolution debate has been going on for many years - not only between interested laymen, but between highly qualified individuals - on both sides of the issue) is to assess information as objectively as possible.

Faith removes that objectivity, and seems to be introducing a few extra requirements that seem impossible to fulfill.
Go faith!

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: I do not understand all the technical jargon, but fortunately there are chaps that understand it well enough to explain it in layman's terms and what I do understand is that the matter is all but settled.
So from my point of view, there is sufficient evidence to logically hold onto a position that does not accept evolution.

So you have fossils dated from a certain period in time.
Then you have fossils from a later period. These second ones are similar to the first ones, but with a few noticeable changes.

Then you have other fossils from a yet later period displaying again a few noticeable changes. These are now substantially different from the first ones that had been found, but they still share some features.

Then you get a time after which you get no more of these fossils which are similar to the original ones. Instead, you see fossils considerably different.

The dinosaurs became extinct and mammals started filling in the niches.

The fossils from these first mammals look like the fossils from mammals existing when there were dinosaurs.

The fossils from a few millions of years later look different, larger, more diverse.
Even later, you can distinguish animals similar to those existent today, elephants, horses, wolves, felines, apes, marsupials...
Earlier fossils show the small adaptations in each of these groups until you arrive at today's diversity.

This was an extremely simplified overview of the fossil record. I hope even you managed to keep up. If you require further information, then you need to be schooled on the proper jargon, and remove the label of "layman" to yourself.
You may refute the dating technique, but it always carries an error bar, even if your layman versions don't. This error bar tells you how wrong the measurement may be... some error bars are larger than others, and some methods are found to be inadequate to dating some materials, but people use them nonetheless, leading to the impression of a wrong measurement. Cross checks are always required.
Now, please, do not assume that your layman views are correct, just because some dishonest creationist fed you with a few biased interpretations of actual science.

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: Even if I could convince you that Christianity agrees more with what we observe than being an atheist that believes in evolution, it will be of no avail. Real Christianity is about realising how bad our lives really look (morally) and in need of forgiveness, turn to the One that promises forgiveness of all the bad stuff me and you have done.

Not you, nor anyone else will ever succeed in convincing me of such a thing.

But yes, it's good that you know to put christianity where it belongs, in your mind. Bottle it up there and keep it to yourself.
The "one that promises forgiveness" seems to be a product of a similar mind and he should have kept it bottled up as well... sadly, he released it on the world, and now we have to type and type and type on these forums, just to try and shine some sanity into the world.

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: Came to think of it after somebody commented on the great number of different "interpretations" of the Bible - all claiming to be right. It just struck me that atheism is similar - its approach to the Bible is based on a specific interpretation of it and more particularly the approach that "it is wrong"’ or a myth.

I approach the bible the same way I approach the Qur'an, the vedas, or the Mayan calendar... or, for that matter, Feynman Lectures on Physics
Skeptic.
If the contents match with my perception of reality, then they get a free pass... if they don't, then they get the boot.
The bible tends to get the boot more often than not...

Perhaps it's my perception of reality that's wrong?
Perhaps my mind is not in tune with the cosmic creator entity.
Perhaps you're the one with the wrong perception, huh?

(February 4, 2014 at 3:44 am)Carnavon Wrote: Micro evolution happens within a specie (wolves, horses) and that is everywhere to see - in contrast to macro evolution which supposedly creates completely new species but lacking transitional fossils and it being observed today.

I have a favorite method for correcting matters of ignorance regarding how evolution works.

Our primate ancestors didn't have one member who suddenly gave birth to a single modern homo sapiens one day. It was what you call microevolution, changes from one generation to the next are virtually imperceptible most of the time, but a million years of such changes may result in a creature at the end which has significant differences from the one at the beginning of the process.

You think of 'species' as a firm, solid qualifier which is objectively described. This is not true at all. In truth, the way we decide upon our classifications of life, and how we assign them, is quite arbitrary, especially as you go towards genus and species. Such a classification system as we use would be problematic to use in long timespans because, eventually, some modern species will evolve into very different forms in the distant future. Some won't. Point is, there won't be a single, certain point where you can say "okay, this generation is no longer Species A; it is now species B". "Species" is a term of convenience and application only in narrow timeframes.

I have a favorite analogy which I love using as a teaching tool to people who don't get evolution.



This shows how light changes in appearance from violet to red as its wavelength increases. You can think of this as violet evolving into red. This graph is 5000 pixels wide (if you click on the image, at least), with each longitudinal pixel column a slightly different color as the wavelength becomes longer, bit by tiny bit. Think of each of these pixels as generations. Each generation, the wave lengthens. It's by a tiny amount, a fraction of a nanometer, from one generation to the next.

In this example, it takes 5000 generations for violet to 'evolve' into red. In actual evolution, changes can take many times this number of generations to produce a change big enough for us to notice. It's easy for you to see different colors up there, blue, yellow, green, orange, so on. Think of those as fossils.

See, the problem is that you follow a book which implies that red cannot have 'evolved' from violet because God made the colors only 100 generations ago. So, to you, all evidence of color looks like this:
Here's how far, left to right, violet has evolved towards red in the last 100 generations:

And you insist that red can only be red and that it cannot ever have been any other color. After all, wouldn't all colors now be red? Why are there still blues and greens?

So, you invent the idea of macroevolution and microevolution and insist that they are not the same process. This leaves me asking you one question, to which I would like your honest answer: Can you point out to me precisely where on that spectrum the light stops being violet and starts being red?

(February 4, 2014 at 8:00 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: So, you invent the idea of macroevolution and microevolution and insist that they are not the same process. This leaves me asking you one question, to which I would like your honest answer: Can you point out to me precisely where on that spectrum the light stops being violet and starts being red?

And cue restatement of original position with no acknowledgement of anything any of us said in five, four, three...

(February 4, 2014 at 4:52 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Carnavon, how old do you think the Earth is? Can you amuse us and explain how molecular biology and palaentology, among other sciences, conclude the following:
Simple cells (prokaryotes) appeared 3.6 billion years ago;
cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis appeared 3.4 billion years ago;
2 billion years ago--complex cells (eukaryotes) appeared;
1 billion years ago--multicellular life;
600 million years--simple animals;
550 million years--bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
500 million years--fish and proto-amphibians;
475 million years--land plants;
400 million years--insects and seeds;
360 million years--amphibians;
300 million years--reptiles;
200 million years--mammals;
150 million years--birds;
130 million years--flowers;
60 million years--the primates;
20 million years--the family Hominidae (great apes);
2.5 million years--the genus Homo (human predecessors);
200,000 years--anatomically modern humans.

What assumptions are they using? The same ones that concluded that the rocks from Mt Ngauruhoe was dated into the millions of years whereas it was only a few years? Don't get me wrong, these scientists use the best methods they have available and come to conclusions based on a number of assumptions that will invalidate any finding if these conditions are not met. I am no scientist but is obvious even for an "outsider" like me that your assumptions, if invalid, makes your findings invalid. There are also a number of facts which mitigate against an old earth, which you are welcome to study if you would like to form an objective opinion on the matter.
And as mentioned before, what is stated in the Bible as fact has always come up trumps in the end, disproving previous opposing "facts". This gives me the confidence in accepting what the Bible says even when "science" claims otherwise.