to all defenders of intelligent design: it is wrong to assume that evolutionary mechanisms cannot be empirically observed.. i'll give only one example to show evolution is all around us:.
fish are becoming smaller and growing more slowly in response to pressures introduced by fishing, scientists say (google ulf dieckmann).. researchers call this fisheries-induced adaptive change, showing that harvesting drives evolution towards smaller fishes.. many people think evolutionary mechanisms require millions of years to bring about such drastic changes and that it is therefore impossible to empirically observe adaptive change.. it is, however, becoming more and more clear that only two or three decades are needed to provoke large changes, in particular when pressures are high.. although some of darwin's are outmoded and easy targets of id advocates, these data perfectly fit in with the mechanisms he predicted to steer evolution..
Actually, you are incorrect Hamilcarr...
When sequencing the genome of the bacterium that had adapted to consume nylon, it was found that it had acquired an additional thymine nucleotide. Over a relatively short period of time, it had adapted to its environment, and this adaptation was expressed through the generating of additional genetic information.
i'm usually the first one to stir this particular pot but it get's so frustrating to keep coming up against the same old arguments.
the phrase "banging your head against a brick wall" springs to mind.
how many times have believers argued for a designer but refused to answer the obvious question of the designer's origin?.
LittleToe,
I wish I could agree with that. However, the JW's have borrowed that argument from other religions, as they have many of their doctrines. I would check out the feedback section of the TalkOrigins.org archive for all the proof that you need.
i'm usually the first one to stir this particular pot but it get's so frustrating to keep coming up against the same old arguments.
the phrase "banging your head against a brick wall" springs to mind.
how many times have believers argued for a designer but refused to answer the obvious question of the designer's origin?.
I have a couple questions for everyone...and a few of the posts in this thread have prompted it...
Theists are often charging that atheists, or even those that just believe in evolution (theistic or not), are without morals or believe what they believe in order to accomodate their desire to have no moral obligation. If that argument can be made, though I personally find it abhorant to think that there is a relationship between the two, can not another argument be made?
Can an atheist, or someone who feels they have no obligation to God, rightly argue that many, if not most, theists only have their sense of morals because of what they feel they are going to get out of their relationship, or belief, in God? How often do we hear the question, both here and other places, "Are you saved?" Or how often do we hear the prediction that "if you dont change, you are going to hell"? Or how many people feel that if they are good to others they will go to Heaven? Or live forever in Paradise?
It seems to me that the argument, based on those statements, which we all hear daily, and serve as the backbone of so many arguments for belief in God/religion, actually shows that the true moral fiber of many of the religious is actually immoral and self centered. I would say that the vast majority of theists maintain their beliefs, and flaunt their moral standards, at least partially based on what they are going to get out of it. What do you think? If one argument can be made, certainly the other can as well. And I would say that, of the two, the blatant self centered hypocrisy of the latter makes it far worse.
prayer topics seem to be the bandwagon of the moment so i'm jumping on!
seriously, has anyone here asked for something specific in prayer and actually gotten what they asked for?
what convinces you that you wouldn't have got it in any case?
JW,
I dont need to ask God. I already know what I think. I am asking you.
prayer topics seem to be the bandwagon of the moment so i'm jumping on!
seriously, has anyone here asked for something specific in prayer and actually gotten what they asked for?
what convinces you that you wouldn't have got it in any case?
jw...
I think you are having some logic issues. Nic isn't God. He hasn't claimed to be God. If he was there he could very well be dead like the other 200,000 people that God let die. And you didnt answer his question. Where was God when he sat back and watched all those people drown?
I personally dont care if people believe in God or not. I am just blown away that they think He is worth worshipping. To think that God lets all the atrocities on this Earth happen, and then gives a rats ass if someone gets twin grandchildren is downright dillusional. Seriously. What screw is loose in peoples minds when they think that God has let tens of millions of people die of AIDS in Africa, and orphans all those children, and then gets you a job? Or gets the meeting cancelled so you dont have to give a talk? Get real...
from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
Spectrum
Thanks for the reply...
You know, in your post you really hit on one of the biggest parts of what makes evolution/creation seem like the big controversy that it isnt. And I cant blame you for it, I used to say the same thing. "Evolution is still in big parts a theory." How right you are, and actually, evolution is exclusively a theory. The reason though that that is a big deal to creationists and not a big deal to scientists is not stupidity on either side or something like that. It is a difference on how one side defines the word as opposed to another. In normal conversation, most people, and occasionally myself, will use the word "theory" synanamously with the word "hunch". In other words, a "theory" coversationally may mean a really good guess, which doesnt neccesarily have the backing of facts. However, scientifically a "theory" is something else entirely. A scientific "theory" is defined as a "set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." So what evolution is, and really what every scientific theory is, is something that looks at observable facts and then attempts to explain them, and then also make predictions based on the observations. That is why every scientific theory changes. So you establish the facts and then come up with an explanation for those facts. It actually isnt half as complicated as most people make it out to be. And as new facts emerge you will see, and should expect to see, changes to a theory. This is not a bad thing though. Scientific theories function properly when they are allowed to adapt to new information. Structured rigidity confined by preexisting belief is the last thing you would want in anything, let alone a scientific field that is going to make predictions that will affect medicine, computers, new technologies, and a host of other things that most people would never relate to biological evolution.
Here is a thought for you that may make it easier for you to see how scientific theories work, and why change is not a bad thing and should be expected and embraced. Einstein came out with his Theory of Special Relativity in 1905. He then expanded on this theory and came out with the Theory of General Relativity in 1915. The need for relativity theory arose to explain the problem that was discovered with an older theory that was proven to be completely wrong and baseless. This was the belief that there was a medium that filled the universe known as ether. And the discovery that ether was such a problem was a real victory for the scientific method, which is the method that has shaped the modern day theory of biological evolution. The theory of relativity arose to as an explanation to the problem with "frames of reference" that was created by Newton's Laws of Motion. Basically, people knew you couldnt go faster then light. But according to Newtons laws people would experience moments when light for them was faster then light itself, and so a theory had to arise to explain this. An example of the problem would be, lets say you are on a train and you shine a flashlight to the front of your car, and someone on the ground sees it as you roll by. For you, the light proceeds out of your flashlight at the speed of light, but for the person on the ground it proceeds out at the speed of light plus the speed of the train along the ground. That was a big problem that ether was created to explain away. But the proof that there was no ether was a huge problem for physics, so a theory arose to (1) take a look at the observable facts, (2) state a way of explaining the facts, (3) survive repeated testing, and (4) make repeated predictions. The theory of Special Relativity did all of these things, and did them correctly. It also changed to encompass additional facts, and became the theory of General Relativity 10 years later. This did not make the original theory invalid, but instead allowed it to grow. And the success of that theory, or theories, can be seen in the fact that it made predictions successfully. Predictions like the fact that time slows down when you approah the speed of light. This has been directly observed, repeatedly. And I am getting off track here, but also in the realm of particle physics, and there are scores of others. Relativity Theory proved its worth by being able to explain those facts, change, and make these predictions.
The Theory of Biological Evolution has done the same types of things. All bio evolution has done is look at what is observable and then make a prediction based on those observations, it has nothing to do with God or religion. You can see a clear observable lineage through out the fossil record tying now very diverse animals together. Look at the skeleton of a whale for proof of that. Look at a human skeleton along side any ape, or extinct hominid and you can see that. It is true for virtually all land and see vertibrates. You can also see through out the Earth the way animals diverge from their relatives when they are isolated, that is what Darwin noticed on the Galapagos Islands. Look at populations of animals that have experienced isolation from their related species. Look at monkeys in South America as opposed to apes in Africa. Look at Australia and Tasmania. Look at the species in Madagascar as opposed to their relatives on mainland Africa. Look anywhere you want. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain these things, and it has survived test after test after test. And again, it has nothing to do with God or religion. The seeming problem/conflict arises though in that the theory of biological evolution does conflict with a literal intepretation of the book of Genesis. But atheism is not a prerequisite for belief in evolution by any means. It is just incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. But absolutely do not take my word for it. Do some real research for yourself. If you are really interested get a book on evolution, I am sure you already have one on creation, as do I.
Evolution has also made leagues of predictions that have been used to improve our lives. One of the best ones out there Abaddon already pointed out. Looking at the fossil record allowed scientists to make predictions regarding genetics that were found to be correct. That is huge! If there was not shared ancestry, there could be no accurate prediction about the genes that would be shared. Another big one would be that an examination of the fossil record would lead to predictions that we would find specific transitional species like the one that was announced about a month ago. Scientists unearthed a clear transistional fossil that showed an animal adapting to live on land permanently. They had the prediction spot on, thanks to the theory of biological evolution. They had it down to the shaping of the limbs and the direction they pointed. That is just another of the reasons that we know that the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation out there that explains the facts that have been established. And the simple fact that evolution can survive, and be refined by change is what shows it to be a robust and vibrant theory and explanation for the diversification of species. But again, it has nothing to do with God.
So regarding your question about the lungfish being the holy grail of evolution, it probably doesnt get any special attention because it is one of so many. If you look around and take an objective look at pretty much any animal out there you will see that they are all in one way or another transitional, including ourselves, as offensive to some as that may seem...
I know that one thing I found myself doing when I was debating evolution/creation was stumbling over my own preexisting beliefs. I knew that to really get to the truth of the matter I had to ask myself, on everything that I read and learned, one simple question. If I had never heard of evolution or creation, which one would I believe if I was getting all of this for the first time? That is when it really dawned on me that I was trying to convince myself that creation was right. I invite you to answer this question. If you had never heard of creation of evolution, and just started wandering through a science museum looking at all of this yourself, all the skeletons, models, mockups and everything else, and there were no signs or any explanation for what you were looking at besides basic names and a detail of features, and then you had two people approach you when your slate was clean, and one presented creation and what they felt its proof was, and another presented evolution and what they felt its proof was, which one would you believe? When I was finally honest with myself I came to realize that biological evolution was the best explanation.
I hope this answers your question.
i spent 26 years in the borg, having been born in.
i conservatively estimated devoting a total of 8 hours/week in terms.
of preparing and attending meetings and threw in "assembly" and "convention" time to the equation.
Yep...it is depressing...
I was born in and began that sssslllllooooowwwwww process of leaving when I was 22. I was a Ministerial Servant for four years and regular pioneered for one, and also regularly auxiliaried...then I limped out. That was about six years ago.
I can not calculate the hours all that accurately, because even at times I was not serving, or clocked in, my mind was still imprisoned. So I will just say 22 years and a half years, or about 8200 days...
Nice...
how does a benevolent and loving god explain away his ecological system whose very persistence relies on the killing and suffering of animals that have fear and pain receptors and know when they are about to get it?
.
can the personilaty attributes religions have given this god be reconciled with his creation?
Shining One
Why should he reconsider that? If a human being did many of the things that God supposedly does on a daily basis, several million times over, our own laws would imprison him. God sits by every day and watches thousands of children die of preventable illness, watches women by the thousands get raped, watched 20 or so vacationers in Egypt get blown apart by terrorist bombs yesterday, and watched hundreds of millions brutally kill each other in war over the past couple thousand years. He has watched millions die of cancer, heart disease, commit suicide, die in accidents, and die of bacterial and viral infections. He also has watched his own servants burn alive at the stake, be fed to lions, be drawn and quartered, and stoned to death among others. Why does God get a pass on this? Especially when if we watched a fellow human being do this we would imprison them? Now the fact that God can prevent it all makes it twice as bad!
But with a track record like that, why should we be surprised that God designed his creatures to kill each other? Some other interesting factoids about the brutal nature of the animal kingdom that always made me wonder, when I believed in a creator, are: (1) African wild dogs disembowel their prey while it is still running. What kind of God would allow that? I mean, the prey animals are still trying to run away and dogs are running in the other direction with their guts. What kind of loving creator creates that? (2) If there was a creator, and animals didnt always prey on each other, then why do Cheetah's have dewclaws? This claw extends up the back side of the foreward limb of a cheetah. A cheetah, when it is chasing it's prey extends this limb and hooks the hind leg of the prey that it is chasing, tripping the animal. The cheetah then follows the seemingly universal feline instinct, which is to suffocate its prey. This is the only purpose of this digit. Why was it on the Cheetah at all when its only use is to facilitate the capture of prey for the purpose of killing it? Was it added after the flood when God was on his day of rest? (3) The Komodo Dragon of Komodo Island. It has the most basic venom system available. It has cultures of bacteria that live in its mouth that are completely poisonous to mammalian blood. It survives by ambushing a herbivore as it minds its own business and goes about its day eating plants. The animal survives the bite and usually walks away. Within three or four days though it falls over dead from blood poisoning. The Komodo Dragon will follow it until it falls over, and then it begins to eat it alive. Indicative of a loving God? And what kind of God would specially create the bacteria in the Komodo Dragon's mouth? (4) Just watch the life get sucked out of anything by a constricting snake.
Would any loving human being specifically create animals that have to do these things just to survive? I can't imagine that any one would. I mean, its not like these animals are doing it for fun, it is how they survive! But what kind of nutjob would design something like that? I guess I dont want to know. But why would we believe in, let alone worship a God who does this, and then expect him to love us? And expect him to actually answer our prayers? And if the fact that I dont understand this is because I am imperfect, or faithless, well, I will take that all day long. I would not follow or admire any human that behaves this way, and I will not serve any God that behaves this way.
i don't know how i ever doubted that intelligent design was correct!
after watching a video involving kirk cameron, i now see the error of my ways, and will be tithing 50% of my income to the church every month out of contrition.. .
you want to know the mighty argument that changed my views, and my life, forever?
This is just another example of creationists being their own worst enemies. If how the banana fits with our "design" is proof of creation, may God also help any athiestic chimpanzees that are out there...
from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
Elderwho
Man, you should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. I have debated creationists for about five years. Having been one myself at one point, I am used to the typical string of incorrect and generally poor responses, partly because I used to give them myself. But the way you conduct yourself in the defense of your beliefs is downright childish and you are a discredit to your faith, as baseless as it may be.
Abaddon,
Nice to see read your posts as always. Dont worry, people are benefiting from your patience and diligence.
Hooberus,
Would you like to provide us with a copy of your statistical analysis that allowed you to come to that determination? Please, no links to junk sites...
Spectrum,
You ask a good question. The first answer that jumped out to me as to why evolutionists dont consider the lungfish to be a holy grail of sorts is because they dont need one. Additionally, there are better examples out there. Let me ask you this, though it might seem like the answer is obvious. Why do you think that it should be such a big deal?
