Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Debunking creationist mythsPage 6 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
there should be a 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [give or take a few trillion] obvious, LIVING, missing links, there isn't one obvious one.

and if my intellect has to come into question again, I can handle it
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 127
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 8:56:23 PM

(Remember it might take a brillant engineer to improve the efficiency of a hydrogen plant, but everyone knows the original blueprints spontaneously produced themselves, because belief in an original engineer is "dogma".) lol


Actually, we can believe in your "hydrogen plant" engineer because chances are pretty good for his existence. Social insurance number, drivers license, used coffee cup...you know, that sort of thing.

Oddly enough, this "big designer of everything" seems not to have left ANY proof of his existence. Whatsoever! And yet, people argue so stridently for his "must have" intervention that produced our existence. Often without question or consideration of the consequences of this. Now that is worth lol'ing about.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:01:34 PM
evolutionist have much less evidence than creationists.

complexity works for me.
what have they got, adapting bacteria, and a box full of bones?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 129
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:09:56 PM

what have they got, adapting bacteria, and a box full of bones?


Well, perhaps an address for this "God" of yours. Or even a label in the sky that says "Made by God" might be a bit more definitive. Any actual physical evidence that we can all look at that says "God" other than the insistence of a bunch of religious zealots.

In the meantime, I'll go with the bacteria and bones, thank you. Just saying "it's so complex so God did it" is, quite frankly, lazy and an intellectual cop-out. It's that plain and simple.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:12:46 PM
No, I think the claim is mutations always produce inferior organisms

Whoever is making this claim is promulgating fiction. The claim is patently false. ANY individual can be shown to have genetic features not found in its parents. The more complex the DNA, the harder it might be to find these differences, but they are there. On the other hand, identifying every individual as somehow "inferior" on this basis is essentially an impossibility and an exercise in subjectivity.


All mutants produced by carefully controlled bursts of radiation have proved to be inferior organisms.

Yet ANOTHER myth. Ionizing radiation as a cause of mutation is not a valid comparison, because it effectively destroys DNA. The concept of "inferior" organisms is also a subjective claim, although death-by-cooked-DNA would reasonably fit the claim.


Genetic engineering on the other hand is another issue all together. Genetic engineering does not occur in the absense of thinking scientists however.

Everything done by genetic engineering also happens on its own naturally. Genetic engineering only arose by examination and study of what already happens naturally! No true Scotsman fallacy.


Remember it might take a brillant engineer to improve the efficiency of a hydrogen plant, but everyone knows the original blueprints spontaneously produced themselves

Fallacy of a false analogy. Mechanical devices must be designed and assembled. Chemical reactions happen all on their own; and biology, complex as it is, is entirely chemical in nature.


because belief in an original engineer is "dogma".

It's not only dogma, it's an exercise in irrationality and fallacious reasoning. If all possible events are explained by deities, then use of such deities is non-explanatory. It's an oxymoron. If a deity can be inserted into the explanation with or without scientific reasoning, then the deity serves no purpose. It's non-parsimonious and redundant. If all explanations are intended to be the simplest predictable and consistent ones, then deities fail on all three counts. Deities in themselves invariably exceed the complexity of the processes we are attempting to understand by simplifying the factors involved. Again, to put it mildly, deities are highly superfluous. All scientific explanations are based on standard and consistent definitions. Deities lack such and are excluded from science.

There is no shortage of ways in which genetic material mutates without use of radiation. Most of these are essentially copying errors, and these can have a wide range of effects which have already been described in these fora. Persisting in denying this constitutes the age-old argumentum ad nauseum, not to mention an obvious desire to persist in intellectual ignorance by failing to read, understand, and learn.


evolutionist have much less evidence than creationists.

A popular and utterly naked claim. Creationists have NO evidence. The many ways in which this is true have already been pointed out. The most fundamental of these is that there is no evidence an intelligent creator exists or is required.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 131
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:22:26 PM
rodregas, well, you know they say every dogma will have it's day.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:39:11 PM
More popular myths:


Almost every individual stage of evolution from the advent of atomic structure, to the existance of DNA are ranging between vastly improbable to out right mathematical impossibilities

Such conclusions are based on exclusion of crucial facts and failure to properly use [or understand] statistics. Post hoc and argumentum ad numerum fallacies are also vital to this claim. Chemistry and physics have universal rules which are followed without intervention by any intelligence. Biology follows these rules.



All of these then compound together as well!

To continue the fallacy... Untrue. This claim is an abuse and misunderstanding of probability. In order to be true, each event must be purely independent of the others. Chemistry renders this untrue. Limited resources renders this untrue. Physics renders this untrue. Rules of PROBABILITY render this untrue! Just how wrong must one TRY to be to use this line of 'reasoning'?



If an intelligence like the God described in the bible existed, suddenly the odds are straight 1:1!

So you have to ASSUME a cause. You have to define this cause to suit your post hoc reasoning, and this cause is utterly devoid of consistency or predictability. In fact, the cause doesn't even explain anything at all, so why include it?

Let's make this more obvious:
Mercury is lifeless. Clearly God made it so.
Earth has life. Clearly God made it so.
Why the difference? God decided? Or do you have something more reliable? If you wish to rely on goddidit, then why not apply that reasoning in all fields? Are you prepared to give up everything of scientific derivation and revert to purely goddidit? If not, where is the arbitrary and entirely subjective line drawn? Why should your supernatural and completely unsupported explanation take precedence over any other? Do you have any rational and objective reason for this, or would you care to be entirely subjective and revert to a life of digging roots and picking berries? Beware - taste-testing vegetation for poisons constitutes science. To be truly 'goddidit', you would have to assume that God will choose to end your life, or make everything you eat non-toxic and edible. Go for it!



Why bang your head against a wall trying to prove these imaginary ape men (or chimps, or monkeys depending on the "expert") existed,

I'm sure that the dozens of species and hundreds of fossils are truly causing paleontologists to bang their heads in this exercise of imagination.



when you could just move on and examine how things ACTUALLY work in nature

Scientists have done this. That's the nature of science. Making up explanations and failing to substantiate them is pretty much the purview of creationists.



Believing God was behind the universe does not mean you stop thinking

Although generally true, you seem to have demonstrated the reverse.



it means you don't waste time thinking about obviously erroneous theories like evolution

Failing to think is a rock-solid method of determining the validity of ANYthing. Amazing approach! Despite the claim of "erroneous", no-one has yet shown this to be the case. Given that the THEORY was created to explain the FACT which was already known for millenia, it would seem you have a ways to go to get any hope of supporting your conclusion.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 133
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:46:20 PM
99.9% of them will then say, evolution done it, lots of thinking there!
and the rest can't be thinking logically.
everything comes from nothing, AND with NO guidence what so ever? ya right!

selection???? why would one mutation survive without all the supporting mutations?
which WILL take millions more years to show up for that mutation to do a shread of good?
AND why are there so many ugly people still?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 134
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 10:07:56 PM
and the rest can't be thinking logically.

That's fairly evident - the arguments are invariably lacking in evidence and completely dependent on fallacious reasoning. That's been demonstrated abundantly.


AND with NO guidence what so ever?

Since there is no evidence of guidance, and natural mutation rates easily meet or exceed those required by any evolutionary explanation, guidance is non-parsimonious.


selection???? why would one mutation survive without all the supporting mutations?

Because it HAS the supporting mutations. Basic code grows in size through "mutation". The enlarged code changes in composition by "mutation". Both occur essentially simultaneously in different parts of the code.

One copied gene gives an insect two sets of wings. One mutation to the new copy causes the second wings to develop as stubs. These stubs happen to improve balance in flight, and allow "flies" to diversify into a hyper-diverse lineage which takes advantage of any food or habitat available. In another insect, the first copy of the gene mutates, leading to forewings which are short, hard, and thick. This hardened stud offers some protection from predators while reducing flight abilities. This too leads to a hyper-diverse lineage - the beetles. Many variations on the wing genes lead to improved shells and improved flight.

Each change builds upon the existing blueprint.


which WILL take millions more years to show up for that mutation to do a shread of good?

The "shred of good" is achieved in weeks or months for bacteria, decades for crustaceans and insects, decades or centuries in humans [re - smallpox and HIV resistance, four strains of malaria resistance - these benefit the individual instantly, the population over a few generations], and centuries in cichlid fishes.

The hypothesis of millions of years is belied by the facts of new species arising within the last century or in habitats which did not exist until 10000 years ago.


AND why are there so many ugly people still?

Because "ugly" is purely subjective, and not necessarily something to be selected against. Human beauty has actually been shown to be a culturally specific measure of "average". Despite that, so-called ugly people seem to have no problem breeding, so obviously other factors are more important.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 10:12:39 PM
and they all work that way, instant success.

sorry, I thought it took a while for beauty, strength, height, knowledge etc. to show.

short , fat, uglys, have many kids too.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 136
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 10:39:42 PM
Instant success is far from universal. All that is required is survival. Among humans, survival has improved a lot due to our own technology and knowledge. Many mutations have little or no apparent impact, and as long as they remain in the population due to breeding, they will exist and be built upon. Some combinations will instantly fail, but you never notice the death of a sperm or egg, nor even many natural abortions. The successes are everything which remains, and their special features may easily escape notice. Over generations, the tiny benefits they may have, can result in these genes becoming common by way of slightly better birth or survival rates. Now and then, the gene combinations produce something distinctive.

Consider scales - over generations, a particular population has scales which become slightly more spiny. Then they start to stick out from the skin a bit. At this point, another mutation appears, causing these scales to become fibrous and divided. Now, instead of a simple protective covering, the animal has a layer of insulation. In a cool habitat or changing climate, this would be a significant change and advantage. In a tree-dweller, these scales would also add protection from falls by increasing drag. Longer scales would do this better. In a long period of time, a series of little changes of no real advantage built up. In a short period of time, a series of little changes rapidly convert this into something unique and advantageous.

Nature does what it will. Some things are more instant than others, including evolutionary changes.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 11:18:30 PM
when you say "another mutation appears" do you mean ONE itty bitty mutation?
to create that layer of insulation?
it takes one mutation to create a layer of, what you say, insulation?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/21/2009 11:45:09 PM
That's all it takes *in some cases*. It may take several codons of a single gene, or several genes to build that scale, but it is quite feasible for only one single "letter" in the code to change and convert a scale into a downy feather. That could easily be considered a "defect", except that such a change in features has the unexpected advantage of trapping air. That provides both aerodynamic drag and insulation, both of which are advantages.

Whether this particular scenario is a "true" example is debatable at best. I use it because the scale-to-feather concept is easy and obvious to appreciate, while the genetic sequence involved is real for any number of other situations which might be harder to sink your teeth into. It would ALMOST be interesting to get into some of the basic ways in which DNA is structured and functions, in order to better explain this, but I think that 'lecture' is really beyond this thread and perhaps not technically within my academic strengths. I do have rather concise and helpful thoughts on the matter, though the explanations would likely contain technical errors.

The theory of evolution is very basic. It includes nothing about how many genetic changes are required, what kinds they should be, or how long anything takes to happen. There are various additional theories on those matters, such as "gradualism" and "punctuated equilibrium". Despite the fact that there are even many scientists who might cling to one or another of these, they are mostly NOT mutually exclusive. Under some situations, one mechanism will take the lead, while under other circumstances a different one will. Mutation is mainly random. Selection is not, but it can be complex, given that there may be many conflicting pressures. That limits our predictability to "change will occur" and "there must be an ancestor with these xxx features". Both hold true.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 139
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:04:16 PM
an instantly good for survival mutation, has to be a one shot deal, because part mutations , that don't do anything for survival,can not see one second into the future, and hang around for the rest to devlope.

bacteria seem to adapt a little different then animals.
if they didn't we wouldn't be here.

a stub for a wing wouldn't do anything any good, and why would it come out in the right spot?
should be tiny stubs here and there, on there bodies, if they are not a hindrance.

and there should still be many different humans around.
they should still be developing, not looking any different for a while.
I am sure we killed every last one of them. another story.
"part human" lineages already developing that other human lineages can't breed with.

quietjohn, I know, others on here used good looking as an evolutionary survival trait.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 140
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:17:36 PM

and there should still be many different humans around.

I take it you've never been to Africa / Asia / Middle east?
If you are referring to a different human-like species. They went extinct. The neanderthal and Homo Erectus are extinct as a species. But they still existed at one point.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 141
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:21:49 PM

a stub for a wing wouldn't do anything any good, and why would it come out in the right spot? should be tiny stubs here and there, on there bodies, if they are not a hindrance.


Um, no. You see...wings didn't just "pop out." Evolution adapted a particular part - the arm - for flight.

In fact, many of the characteristics shared between dinosaurs and birds seem to have existed prior to birds' winged flight and served other purposes first. Which is the way of evolution. However, it is possible for a random mutation in an animal to impart a particular survival advantage. Its progeny pass it on and eventually out-compete their compatriots.

That, too, is the way of evolution. Ya, I know. "That's just wrong." Sorry, sunshine. But that's the way nature works.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 142
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:23:25 PM

and there should still be many different humans around.
they should still be developing, not looking any different for a while.
I am sure we killed every last one of them. another story.


Already happened, yes. Unless you've seen some neanderthals around, lately.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 4:16:30 PM
conjecture might work for you, not me.
neanderthals could be apes, we don't have much evidence of them, just a few bones.

we wouldn't be able to stop the innumerable amount of different human lineages.
some wouldn't even be recognizably different for some time, and we wouldn't have been killing them for a long time in the past.

am I to believe there were only a handfull of different lineages?

why didn't some of the slightly different missing links survive, should be thousands?

did humans, as we are today, appear milions of years ago? why? we should be evolving into many different species
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 4:26:36 PM
an instantly good for survival mutation has to be a one shot deal, because part mutations can not see one second into the future

This makes no sense at all. In more ways than one.


bacteria seem to adapt a little different then animals.

Not really, though I can understand how you might see it that way.

Bacteria are microscopic. They live in environments where the majority of selective pressures are physical or chemical. Even larger predatory cells could be detected chemically. Since DNA functions at its most basic level by creating proteins, it's a very short series of events for a mutation to lead to a chemical solution to a chemical or physical stressor.

For larger organisms, the complex environments provide stresses which are not so straightforward [seasons, changing food supplies, changing weather, predators, disease, daylight cycles, etc], while the organisms themselves have a complex structure and behavior. Tiny changes in DNA structure work exactly as they do in bacteria, but rather than a chemical solution to a chemical problem, the proteins produced lead to changes in structure, reproduction, or behavior by altering the developmental chain slightly.

The differences still come down to matters of scale, but scale acts on reproductive rate, selective pressures, development, etc, all in separate ways. That really muddies the waters and slows the process, though it doesn't change the basic principles any.


if they didn't we wouldn't be here

You keep repeating this, but I have yet to see it substantiated.


a stub for a wing wouldn't do anything any good, and why would it come out in the right spot?

The fact is, it DOES do good. Rather than generating lift when "flapped", it acts as a gyroscopic stabilizer, improving the flight abilities of flies.

To the second part, I was trying to avoid discussing genetic structure, as you might recall. This gets back to the HOX gene family, which are responsible for segmented body structures. HOX genes function in order front-to-back. If one of these genes is duplicated in place, the two copies will create identical adjacent structures. Frankly, you should be studying introductory genetics rather than having us explain this to you.
However, I'll try a simple example:

Call the original HOX gene "HXA". It functions by telling the organism to build a body segment. Assume it to be a string of separate steps ending with a code which says "stop here". We'll skip many steps and simplify this a LOT. We now have a basic hexapod with a lot of body segments. The HXB genes work together to build a head, the HXC build a thorax, and the HXD build an abdomen:

Basic hexapod: HXB1-HXB2-HXB3-HXB4-HXB5-HXC1-HXC2-HXC2-HXC2-HXC3-HXD... no wings, 6 legs
HXB creates a head, with all the antennae, jaw bits, etc.
HXC creates the thorax, with HXC2 creating pairs of legs.
HXD creates the legless abdomen

An ancient hexapod mutates HXC3. Repeated mutations here gradually lead to flapping wings. Call that HXC3w. Very early on, that gene is duplicated, and the duplicate survives because 4 wings provide much more stability than 2:
HXC1-HXC2-HXC2-HXC2-HXC3w-HXD 2 wings, 6 legs
then
HXC1-HXC2-HXC2-HXC2-HXC3w-HXC3w-HXD 4 wings, 6 legs
Note that duplications are likely to stay "close to home" because DNA is copied in series from one end to the other. A HOX gene copied in sequence will build a body part in sequence.

Somewhere along the way, errors occur in HXC3. One error hardens the wing, and one error causes the wing to arrest and develop only the stub [a "haltere"]. Call these 'ws' for "wing, shell", and 'wh' for "wing, haltere".
HXC1-HXC2-HXC2-HXC2-HXC3ws-HXC3w-HXD 4 wings, 6 legs A beetle, first two wings are a shell
HXC1-HXC2-HXC2-HXC2-HXC3w-HXC3wh-HXD 4 wings, 6 legs A fly, second two wings are halteres

I'm doubt that actually clarifies the process, but I will try to be optimistic. I said before it is too complex to do justice here, and I am still grossly simplifying the process.


should be tiny stubs here and there, on there bodies, if they are not a hindrance.

Non sequitur fallacy. There is no support from which you can leap to such conclusions.
First, this scenario requires deliberate and repeated duplication of the same gene set. Just because genes CAN mutate and be duplicated, does not mean that they must or do.
Second, it calls for a structure to result contrary to the ways in which development actually works. DNA is read sequentially, structures are built sequentially. Not haphazardly. Halteres are modified wings. They develop on a body segment programmed for wings.
Third, it assumes that all similar options are equal. A stubby wing may not be a problem on a second wing segment, but it might be useless on a first segment. It would definitely be useless if there were NO normal wings at all. Elsewhere, it might disturb flight, interfere with reproduction or feeding, etc.

You're jumping to conclusions which are not supported by the facts.


and there should still be many different humans around

Why? You're repeating the same logical error as above.

Currently, gorillas are found in African forests, orangutans in Asian swamp forests, the two chimpanzee species in savannas and forest edges in Africa...and us everywhere else. 30000 or so years ago, there were as many as four species of Homo alive. However, our population grew, and grew, and we invaded all available human habitats. We wiped them out directly or indirectly. Multiple related species will co-exist only so long as they are compatible. Meanwhile, diversification of our own species continues to accelerate, such that we could be several separate species in a few millenia.

and part lineages already developing that other human lineages can't breed with
They are. Often the first such differences are simply geography and behavior. Local populations preferentially choose local mates over imports. Eventually, any little barriers to out-breeding which might arise become concentrated in the local population, until it's no longer a matter of choice. For humans, it's still a choice, but it should be obvious that people frequently do prefer mates from their own race and culture.

In addition, the argument shows a flawed understanding of the species definition which even many biologists are guilty of. Ability to interbreed is NOT by itself evidence of being the same species. There are a great many distinct species capable of interbreeding with one another. They do not because of differences in habitat or behavior. Many of these are not especially close relatives. Inability to interbreed is evidence of species status. It is not required evidence, it is not the only evidence, and the reverse argument is the fallacy of inverted syllogism.


quietjohn, I know, others on here used good looking as an evolutionary survival trait

It's a valid trait, but it's a subjective one, and it does not function independantly of all other traits. A good looking quadraplegic isn't likely to succeed in the "wild".


neanderthals could be apes, we don't have much evidence of them, just a few bones

No, we have a ton of evidence of them. They differed very little from us, though they did differ. Give them a bath and haircut and clean clothes, and you likely wouldn't pick them out of a crowd.


did humans, as we are today, appear milions of years ago? why?

No. Our species is normally estimated at 100000 years, our genus at 3 million years. I dealt with this in the last 2-3 days in one of these two threads.


we should be evolving into many different species

As I indicated above, we are.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 145
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 4:33:39 PM

neanderthals could be apes, we don't have much evidence of them, just a few bones.


Well, that's wrong on so many levels. There's a ton of evidence about neanderthals, what they were like, their habits, their abilities. No, they weren't apes. And a walk down the streets will show you many different human "types" for lack of a better word that were an evolutionary response to migration from the "cradle" of humanity outward. Given enough time and the right conditions, it's possible that the ancestors of one group of humans split off from another group might not be able to breed anymore with the original group. However, since we've maintained pretty close ties over the millennia, that doesn't apply now.

And, again...there are no missing links. Every individual of every species is a "link" in the chain of that species development.

However, you are also exhibiting the classic creationist tactics of resetting the goalposts and making false analogies. They're false arguments that really don't propel discussion anywhere of value, I'm afraid.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 146
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 6:29:10 PM
Ok ok, I got a new one.

""Enter scientists name here" said that his theory was a lie on his death bed!""

It's amazing that creationists ALWAYS use this argument.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 147
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 7:10:24 PM
versen
you and MANY MORE have all kinds of faith in fallible science and scientists, I don't!

Until I can reasonably understand how BASICALLY it all came from nothing with no guidance, [selectionnot withstanding] I will not believe a shread of it, no proof what so ever , IN MY MIND.

I am not tying to brain wash anyone with half truths.
I feel that evolutionists are.
thats how I feel, and am entitled to it.

frogo has explained many things.
that which I understand, fits in with creation.
I do have to learn more, but that which I have learned, puts me more into an intelligent designer camp. go figure!
I know for a fact that the normal populus that believes in evolution has figured out nothing on there own, but believe the fallible scientists.

I don't believe anything on faith, it has to make sense.
If I don't outright understand it, I don't outright believe it.
nut shell
happened by itself???

you guys,yes!
me---------no!
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 148
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 7:28:27 PM
you and MANY MORE have all kinds of faith in fallible science and scientists, I don't!

What are you typing on?
What do you drive?
What do you live in?
Do you have power? Who do you think brought us electricity?
Who gave us boats?
Who gave us centralized heat?
Who gave us processed food?
Who gave us agriculture?
Who gave us planes?
Who gave us space shuttles?
Who gave us cures/vaccines?
Who gave us genetic engineering?
Without these "fallible scientists" we wouldn't have ANY of these. For ****s sake dude, give credit where credit is do. What you just said is an INSULT to every scientist preceding you. You should THANK science for it's advancements otherwise you would be in the wild HUNTING for your food. Hell, you would be DEAD WITHOUT SCIENCE. Science advanced our life expectancy from 25 to 75. You're 57 years old. You would be dead without science. Cancers would roam unscathed without science and chemo.
If you don't give credit where credit is do *to the scientists* than you're an ungrateful little dolt who doesn't deserve all of the scientific advancements which scientists have spent their LIVES providing for you.

Simply because you don't understand science doesn't mean the science is wrong. You, a layman, is arguing against scientists who have PHD's in biology. hmm.. Who is the more credible one I wonder?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 8:20:22 PM
you and MANY MORE have all kinds of faith in fallible science and scientists, I don't!

The irony of this is twofold. First, science is the only system of knowledge available which constantly seeks the most consistent and useful explanation and is self-correcting. It's not so much "fallible" as it is self-improving. Second, all alternatives are NON-scientific. By definition they are MORE fallible because they lack any method of confirmation, support, OR correction! Also by definition, conclusions and beliefs which are not based on or supported by science, are FAITH! Conclusions from science are not. We believe in science and scientists not because of faith, but because of evidence.


that which I understand, fits in with creation

Actually, they fit with science in general and evolution in particular. They may ALSO fit with SOME views of creation, which is fine. However, "creation" lacks any consistency or explanatory ability, so no-one of scientific repute will include or even consider it. It's irrelevant.


but that which I have learned, puts me more into an intelligent designer camp. go figure!

The logic against that has been spelled out. In any case, it's inconsequential, so long as you see that the natural mechanisms exist and work. Really, who cares if a "designer" is at work behind the scenes? There's no evidence of that designer, and the mechanisms all work predictably without one. The only evidence of intelligence would be if such things did NOT work predictably [due to the designer changing his mind], though even that would be questioned and a consistent explanation sought for the exceptions.


I know for a fact that the normal populus that believes in evolution has figured out nothing on there own, but believe the fallible scientists

Of course. However, much of the remainder of the population would consist of people who do NOT believe in science without understanding anything on their own.

The problem is, science is the ONLY system that actually WORKS. You call science fallible, but does faith give you electricity? Does it provide you television or radio, or aircraft, or computers, or the insulation of your house, or fluorescent lighting, or telephones, or synthetic fabrics, or refrigeration, or nutritious foods, or domestic high-yield crops, or medicine, or surgery? No. These derive from science just as the observation and theory of evolution do. Science is reliable. Faith is fallacious AND fallible.


I don't believe anything on faith, it has to make sense.
If I don't outright understand it, I don't outright believe it

Fair enough, but how do you understand an intelligent designer? Where does a complex creator come from? Why, logically, would all explanations break down into smaller and simpler consistent explanations, only to be supplanted by an immensely complex, undefined, and undemonstrated creator? That's MIGHTY inconsistent. If you're going to believe in things you don't understand, it would seem to make most sense to choose those which are consistent and based on things which are reliable [creationism doesn't fit here].


nut shell
happened by itself???

All biology happens by way of physics and chemistry, and follows reliable rules. The mechanisms of evolution follow the same rules, without violation. Things don't just happen. They follow principles of probability [creationist fallacies not withstanding] and rules of physics and chemistry. Life and its change is inevitable, not unlikely. Given countless billions of chance happenings, each event NARROWS the options for future events. Eventually, anything which is self-sustaining in any way will rapidly increase in frequency because it creates conditions which increase the liklihood of continuing.

To give a simple example - Ascension Island is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean between Brazil and Africa. It's an arid rock with a couple mountains. The wind blows over the bare landscape and little is given the chance to grow. Over a century ago, however, biologists brought various plants from tropical rainforests, and planted them on Ascensions' peaks. Before long, the grown plants were spreading. They retained moisture in the soil and caused clouds to accumulate at the peaks, thereby trapping water when it had previously blown past. Thus, Ascension now has a steadily growing rainforest, because of a system which provides positive feedback to itself. That's life and pre-living chemistry in a nutshell - chance systems which spread because they create the systems which favor them.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 150
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/22/2009 9:38:28 PM

Where is the evidence to back up this materialist's creation MYTH?
Let's have a close look at the "scientific" evidence which allegedly substantiates this feather-mutated-from-scale myth. It should be interesting...or if not interesting, at least good for another laugh.

It's a little more complicated than one gene, one codon, but not a whole lot. Here's a good paper to get you started, if you're even remotely interested in learning. I know you haven't shown any such interest in the past, but sometimes people change for the better:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=557315&blobtype=pdf

A good book: Avian biochemistry and molecular biology By Lewis Stevens

Actually, you can find a whole lot of information just by searching "scale feather genes" on google. Good luck with your education!
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths