Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha 69 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Spectrum

  Satanus,
  
  How does a scientist's denial of the existence of God nevermind his origins, and me accepting that it is unlikely to ever be known make an evolutionary scientists theory more credible.
  
  
  " A scientist, on the other hand, would"
  
  Really? Scientist deny his existence nevermind test for it.
• 

  funkyderek

  Spectrum:

  Funky,
  
  
  there you go. Happy?
  
  
  http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2259

  Yes, I am. You provided evidence when challenged instead of making a generalisation as you initially did. Much much better. You've gone up in my estimation.

  I don't think Abaddon meant to deny that many scientists believe life began in the ocean, just that it was in ordinary sea water - a response to your "bucket of sea water" comment earlier in the thread.
• 

  Spectrum

  Tetra,
  
  There's a big flaw in your santa analogy.
  
  Choice one assumes a complex sequence of events that can only by implemented by an intelligent source.
  Choice two assumes that you don't believe in complex things magically appearing from nowhere - only a child would.
  You would hold on to choice one like your life depended on it and resist choice two till your dying days.
  Which physical law prohibits something from nothing?
  
  In terms of parsimony, this is a fake choice that you have given me. Why? Because one is known to be a non event. I don't know about you but die hard evolutionist abaddon has already admitted that he personally cannot exclude the existence of God. Ask in case I misunderstood him.
  
  Mine were realistic. Why? Because the only difference between us is, you believe evolution was unguided and I believe it was guided. The law of parsimony therefore works overwhelming in my favour for each stage of evolution. I add God to one of the choices, which you say complicates things unnecessarily, but in adding God you remove improbabilities that would choke up choice two to the point where it becomes as improbable as your santa analogy.
  
  Respect
• 

  Spectrum

  Thanks for the upgrade much appreciated.
• 

  Satanus

  Spectrum

  How does a scientist's denial of the existence of God nevermind his origins, and me accepting that it is unlikely to ever be known make an evolutionary scientists theory more credible.

  A scientist would agree w you that the origins of your god's origins will never be known, eccept for the fact that it originated in your imagination, or the imagination of some middle eastern semitic goatherd. A scientist draws conclusions from experimental and observable evidence. You start w the belief that there is a god, unsupported by evidence. You walk further away from the cliff's edge by asserting that you don't know it's origins, and still further by implying that it isn't necesary to know it's origins. Who is more credible? Why'nt you start by proving that god does exist, then go from there?

  " A scientist, on the other hand, would"

  Really? Scientist deny his existence nevermind test for it.

  Why not design a scientific test for god, then?

  S
• 

  Abaddon

  Spectrum

  Woah, first of all, how about responding to;

  You = I believe that an Intelligent Creator created us possibly by a process of evolution but certainly not that it was a blind mainly random process.

  Me = And if you are describing evolution as "a blind mainly random process", you know nothing about evolution.

  Evolution is NOT "a blind mainly random process". 'Us' godless Creationists go "Bwahahahaha!" everytime we hear a goddiditist say this, as it means they a/ don't know a thing about evolution, b/ don't know a thing about evolution, and (repatiton for emphasis) c/ don't know a thing about evolution. Evolution's PROGRESS is so not random. Even if occasional change due to mutation IS random, the process of 'selecting' and preserving change is NOT.

  '

  My riff about RNA

  You = I really don't get your logic here or what it proves. Please explain.

  You describe evolution as "a blind mainly random process".

  I have describe an experiment you can do in a lab which shows it isn't. In this experiment a 'wild' strain of RNA that normally infects bacteria will, if subjected to 'selection pressure' of an environment, change into an RNA that better suited for that environment (by getting rid of all the RNA coding for how it infects bacteria in the wild).

  When you repeat this experiment you get more-or-less the same results; an organism shaped in the wild for bacterial infection can be bred in a lab for 'test tube infection', and each time you do the experiment it will turn out (functionally) the same.

  This clearly shows natural selection is NOT a random process.

  "Please find me ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years (if ever) that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water?"

  I don't now how many times evos say life started in the oceans.

  Evasion! Answer the question.

  Or do you have to use out-dated ideas (expressed in simplified terms at that) about abiogenesis to have a decent argument?

  Obviously, coming from an environment where people are kept away from anything remotely resembling decent science, you might have had old, incorrect or non-representative ideas about abiogenesis and evolution fed to you, and don't realise things like you will NOT find ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water! Do you even know where current speculation about abiogenesis would place it as happening?

  The question is Spectrum, are you open minded enough to accept you are, as far as discussing evolution goes, playing poker with dominos?

  There is nothing wrong with your head, I am sure. It's just been filled with nonsense (don't worry, we've all been there and used EXACTLY the same protestations as you). It also has not been filled with enough specific knowledge about evolution to prevent you making misleading statements about what evolution is.

  Your choice is simple; make YOUR OWN study** of it, or carry on as you are. It's down to you. Obviously, "we'll" help, unless you're unwilling to do any work yourself and go round in circles, in which case you'll find we've had that stunt pulled on us one time too many by others to let it slide.

  I have to ask; why does god have to be as stupid and limited as ID-ots YEC's and OEC's make out? Think of two choices of god;

  1/ Science is massively wrong (although all the products you use as a result of scientiifc progress work just fine, and you will have a healther life and extended life-span as a result of science's progress). A Bronze age goat herd used a form of a Hebrew noun that means god had to make things like some god-damn potter, each according to it's kind, even if ALL evidence points to the contrary.

  2/ Bronze age goat herds are not the best source of sceintific data. If god made us in any way, he could make us any way he wanted to. Thus if it seems he made us using naturalistic processes, that is how he did it, no matter what the goat herd's choice of noun is. This means god really does play dice with the universe, but can 'call' how they'll fall for 4 billion years simply by 'blowing' on them. Far cleverer than the simplistic potter god ID-ots, YEC's and OEC's blasphemously believe in.

  ... which do you think is more likely Spectrum?

  **You know the debate over who really wrote Shakespeare?

  Well, who would be the most relaible person to pass judgement on this, one who had studied Shakespeare and the period, or one who had learned how to make seemingly convincing arguments that to support a preconception that Marlowe or Queen Elisabeth did?

  Both might make equally good points to a person not versed in the subject.

  But the one who had studied the period and Shakespeare would be able to point out all the ommissions of data and selective presentation required to make the other's argument credible.

  Thus by study I mean learning about a subject as a science student would rather than as a Creationist does, i.e., study what the evidence supports, not how to make set-piece "presentations" to support a preconceived idea.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  spectrum,

  There's a big flaw in your santa analogy.
  
  
  Choice one assumes a complex sequence of events that can only by implemented by an intelligent source.

  and highlighted in red is your big flaw. so, let me get this striaght: i basically wipe your face with your own argument, and instead of thanking me, all you have to reply with is the same unfalsifiable claim? okay.

  let me ask you something:

  you were once a witness, yes?

  • do you still believe that jerusalem was destroyed in 607? no?
  • do you still believe that christ began his invisible rule in 1914? no?
  • do you still believe that the bible condemns blood transfusions? no?

  so, why do you still believe in their other crap, like creationism? it's not like the creationism argument is a willy nilly subjective view, like "love thy neighbor". it's actually an objective argument, making positive assertions about the world, and what is found in it, and what should be found in the future. the thing is, that like 607, and 1914, and blood, it has been shown to be just as assinine as the rest. if you swallowed four different poisons, would your body only reject three of them? no. well, then lets face the music and dance then, shall we?

  tophat,

  Maybe the if the apes could talk?

  they are. they're called humans. and they have a theory that explains why they resemble other primates more than they resemble angels from the bible.

  TS
• 

  Spectrum

  Tetra,
  
  "i basically wipe your face with your own argument, and instead of thanking me,"
  
  Well stated, but how so? I thought it was quite the opposite. You took choice one that involved intelligence and purpose - you turned against your own arse mate.
  
  I will thank you though. For showing that even evolutionist prefer intelligence behind a complex sequence of events.
• 

  Spectrum

  You insist it's not random and not blind. Ok I'll have to read up more and either give more precise meaning or change/remove those two words altogether from my argument.
  
  You are of the opinion that God is a sentiment of a few goatherders from the land of Canaan. My feeling is that human need to believe in God is an integral part of the human psyche. It's hardwired into us for some reason.
  
  Now regarding your RNA. I'm still not quite sure what it proves. I'll tell you what I understand and you can tell me where I'm going wrong.
  
  You've start with some complex polymer RNA, don't no where it came from, perhaps a virus, you then change it's(RNA) environment and it hydrolyses(if that's the reaction type) in a consistent manner to a 500 unit long polymer. OK so this molecule breaks down in a test tube environment. The infecting part is lost, so what? Not sure if this lashes out at my accusation of blindness and randomness.
  
  It's stable at 3600 units in one environment and breaks down to 500 in another. Most reactions are predictable.
• 

  Spectrum

  Abaddon,
  
  What environmental pressures produced the eukoryotic's nuclear membrane?