A big problem for Evolution?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by das1ngerplayer

The evidence proving the Bible to be true in in the book.

Do you have any idea how illogical this is? My mind is so boggled upon reading this that I can't even come up with the correct logical fallacy? Circular logic, perhaps? False premise? Hell, I'm sure it contains several different ones.

David Koresh thought he was the Messiah. He said he was the Messiah, so he must be.

Well, we really screwed up when we killed him, then! By your logic, we killed the son of God!

That's like trying to define a word by using the word in your definition.

(Then again who knows, there could be some bogus book about science or life that people look to ).

Yeah, like the Bible. Book about life that people look to. Maybe bogus, maybe not.

God is a construct; he can't be proven or disproven.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[das1ngerplayer]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Do you have any idea how illogical this is? My mind is so boggled upon reading this that I can't even come up with the correct logical fallacy? Circular logic, perhaps? False premise? Hell, I'm sure it contains several different ones.

David Koresh thought he was the Messiah. He said he was the Messiah, so he must be.

Well, we really screwed up when we killed him, then! By your logic, we killed the son of God!

That's like trying to define a word by using the word in your definition.



Yeah, like the Bible. Book about life that people look to. Maybe bogus, maybe not.

God is a construct; he can't be proven or disproven.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Technically if you think about it, it was mans fault Jesus was put on the cross. And there have been many people claiming to be the son of God, none of which actually are. Sometimes you just have to have morals and beliefs. If you don't then I cannot help you at all. I, as you can most likely tell, believe in God and many of my thoughts come from my morals. Not all can be explained and I know that but neither can all science so we're stuck with our own opinions.

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

Ok, here's what floors me about evolution. First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing. Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another? When did we go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Did sexual organs just pop out of the blue? Were they completely, perfectly functional without any mistake even when they were not quite developed? And at what point was that? Thirdly, Darwin is extremely uncertain throughout his writings (see link). I'm not saying anything against science, I think it has greatly improved life in general. It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

http://www.antipas.org/books/evoluti...le/evo_02.html

[BluE_MeaniE]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Gardenia

First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing.

So, there's a bit of a misunderstanding about evolution here. No one says evolution has a "direction". In a sense, everything may be in an intermediate stage, but evolution doesn't necessarily predict what a species is going to become. And oganisms are indeed still changing and developing.

Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another? When did we go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Did sexual organs just pop out of the blue? Were they completely, perfectly functional without any mistake even when they were not quite developed? And at what point was that?

While I don't know the answer to this one specifically, nothing just pops out of the blue perfectly functional as it is now. It doesn't work that way. It's been demonstrated often how mechanisms in a species come about from a number of different ways.

The ones I can think of off the top of my head here things developing by a number of stages, each slightly less crude than the one preceding it. It doesn't need to be perfect to be better than other species' versions of the same thing. Other methods are co-option, and things like that. Yada yada yada.

The point is, I'm just sensing a misunderstanding of what evolution says.

Thirdly, Darwin is extremely uncertain throughout his writings (see link). I'm not saying anything against science, I think it has greatly improved life in general. It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

http://www.antipas.org/books/evoluti...le/evo_02.html

Yes, actually. It took Charles Darwin a very hard and long time to even admit the whole natural selection theory. I attribute that to his pretty interesting relationship with religion through his life. But that doesn't mean anything as evolution doesn't begin and end with Darwin in any way.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Gardenia

Ok, here's what floors me about evolution. First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing.

Firstly, go read up on evolution.
Secondly, these points have been addressed already, in this thread to boot. Read threads before you post in them and you'll have your posts considered more.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

I did read the previous posts, and I didn't see any of my exact points already stated. Also, I am allowed to simply state my opinion anyway, even if it has already been discussed.

[talisman]

Asking "why don't we see intermediate species?" is the same as asking "why can't we travel back in time?" The intermediate species have evolved into what they evolved into. No species today is the ancestor of any other species today, yet many species share a common ancestor which evolved into them.

The evolution of sexual reproduction is a huge mystery. It is not known HOW it evolved, yet this doesn't mean that it didn't evolve in the first place.

[meiloyn]

Okay, a species of bird with chunky beaks lives on a small island. The only two sources of food on the island are bugs living inside the bark of the trees, and the hard seeds that the trees drop.

Obviously, the birds with the chunky beaks can't get into the bark easily, but they can break the seeds open. But these seeds are becoming scarce. If a bird was suddenly born with a thinner beak, he will be unable to break open the seeds. If it hadn't been for the bugs living in the bark, he would be dead.

And the seeds are gone. This bird with the thin beak has children with the other birds. Some of them have thin beaks, some of them with chunky beaks. The ones with the chunky beaks will die out.

In time, the island will populated with birds with thin beaks.

~*~

Actually, in most cases, the bird probably wouldn't develop the thin beak. And the species will die out.

It is, in fact, partly determined by luck.

~*~

So many factors go into evolution that it is really one big giant l nxrbcpoai;en cpwnpcanatvinowngc/.

For example, when you step out under the hot sun, your skin protects you by darkening itself. Since the sun in Africa is very hot, native Africans have brown skin.

This form of evolution is an environmental factor.

~*~

Another one.

In northern canada, the animals are white. This helps camouflage them against the snow, so they won't be attacked by predators as much.

This was probably caused by some random mutation. An animal with white fur was born among those with grey fur, and predators couldn't see the animal. This gene spread to the animal's decendants. Since it was so successful, all the animals developed white fur.

[meiloyn]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Gardenia

Ok, here's what floors me about evolution. First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing. Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another? When did we go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Did sexual organs just pop out of the blue? Were they completely, perfectly functional without any mistake even when they were not quite developed? And at what point was that? Thirdly, Darwin is extremely uncertain throughout his writings (see link). I'm not saying anything against science, I think it has greatly improved life in general. It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

http://www.antipas.org/books/evoluti...le/evo_02.html

http://www.bnl.gov/esd/reserve/image...0greenfrog.jpg

Here's what you're asking for. Its young is basically a fish with legs. In a million years, the frogs of today might evolve into another species of reptile.

Also, in the amphibian family, there is something called the salamander. It doesn't look too different from a lizard, does it? In fact, amphibians are basically the cross between fish and reptiles.

It should also be noted that most birds have legs that are scaled like reptiles. So in this way, birds are still almost reptiles.

~*~

I also question the asexual to sexual reproduction problem, too. I don't have an answer myself.

[das1ngerplayer]

Originally Posted by meiloyn

http://www.bnl.gov/esd/reserve/image...0greenfrog.jpg

Here's what you're asking for. Its young is basically a fish with legs. In a million years, the frogs of today might evolve into another species of reptile.

Also, in the amphibian family, there is something called the salamander. It doesn't look too different from a lizard, does it? In fact, amphibians are basically the cross between fish and reptiles.

It should also be noted that most birds have legs that are scaled like reptiles. So in this way, birds are still almost reptiles.

~*~

I also question the asexual to sexual reproduction problem, too. I don't have an answer myself.

Again though, there is no proof the creatures did evolve. Science has evidence that they say proves it and believers of the Bible say they have proof. We may never know the real truth, we don't know where we go when we die, we don't know if creatures evolved. Questions that are going to end up being argued about for a very long time.

That's why I don't like talking and arguing about this. Many people just won't change their minds no matter what, I find it best to just stick to my beliefs and if someone does want informed, I'll tell them what I know.

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

I'm still not convinced, there are just too many unanswered questions and outrageous ideas involved with evolution in my opinion. I can't say that I buy the "white fur" example. Unless chromosomes can think, I don't understand what/who would decide that being white is successful, a good idea and that all animals up north should be white, or what would cause them to make a connection between being white and being safe. Interesting thought on the frog, though I still think frogs are frogs and always will be.

[BluE_MeaniE]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Gardenia

I'm still not convinced, there are just too many unanswered questions and outrageous ideas involved with evolution in my opinion. I can't say that I buy the "white fur" example. Unless chromosomes can think, I don't understand what/who would decide that being white is successful, a good idea and that all animals up north should be white, or what would cause them to make a connection between being white and being safe. Interesting thought on the frog, though I still think frogs are frogs and always will be.

Um...are you serious? Being successful means not dying.

And das1ngerplayer, nearly everything you've said absolutely boggles my mind with its ridiculousness.

I love evolution, but coming back to these threads is masochism. I'm sorry.

[GuidoHunter]

Okay, maybe I got a couple of threads confused, so I'll just give a quick rundown of some points.

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Gardenia

First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution?

1: When we look at a creature right now, we don't think, "Oh, that organ or piece of flesh is probably an intermediate stage of something evolving in the future!" No, we say things like, "Well, that thing is good for dissipating heat, navigating through water, or breaking down a certain molecule."

2: No matter how many time a hole is filled, two more open up. You can CONSTANTLY ask for creatures that fill every hole there is, but they will always be there; that argument doesn't hold water. If we have 1 and three, and you question the hole between them, 2 can be found to fill that hole, but then you just ask about the holes between 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. When 1.5 and 2.5 are found, you've got four holes to claim need to be plugged!

A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature?

3: A half of a wing might have been a terrible wing, but a really good heat dissipator or something else.

4: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...18#post1159218

If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing.

Yeah. There are, and some have been observed, despite the great lengths of time over which evolution occurs. We shouldn't be observing any, but we got lucky.

Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another?

Since before life even existed. Both metabolism and selection were around before life was (and they were the precursors to life). Cycles and systems adapted to their environments and fed off of other systems to best degrade energy and thus to "survive".

It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

This quote just shows that you don't know what science is. Science is happy to admit that nothing can ever be proven, but it also appreciates the fact that more and more evidence can allow us to be more and more sure about our claims, which is what is happening with evolution. It's got SO much evidence behind it that it's been elevated to the level of scientific theory.

As such, evolution is a great example of what "true" science is! A hypothesis was developed hundreds of years ago, and it's been tested, tested, revised, tested, tested, revised, and tested and revised some more over all that time, and it's STILL being confirmed (in general, not to the letter of Darwin's original hypothesis, of course).

Originally Posted by das1ngerplayer

Again though, there is no proof the creatures did evolve. Science has evidence that they say proves it and believers of the Bible say they have proof.

There is a mountain of proof that creatures did evolve.

Also, your second sentence is unclear, here. Scientists say, yes, that they have proof, and they do. Believers of the Bible don't have proof; they have faith.

If you're going to support creation science, then your ground is about as stable as grits. Creation scientists' proof is wishy-washy at best and frequently purveyed by very disreputable people. That is, if it hasn't already been debunked (which most of it has). A mountain of evidence versus a handful of evidence isn't really a fair comparison.

You're right, though, in that we don't know what really happened. We could have all been put on this earth yesterday, just with full memories of lives that didn't happen. But what's the point of studying that? Science is about studying evidence and drawing conclusions about what most likely happened.

Science has done just that with evolution, and even if it may not have been what happened up until now, to say that anything else has a firm base of evidence is intellectual dishonesty.

Also: I think studying what happens with species over the next hundred or thousand years will give us a very good look at what probably happened in the past.

EDIT (ninja'd):

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Gardenia

Unless chromosomes can think, I don't understand what/who would decide that being white is successful, a good idea and that all animals up north should be white, or what would cause them to make a connection between being white and being safe.

Uh, as I mentioned above, nonliving systems frequently "think" and adapt to the best gradient-reducing system. Selection is apparent in nonliving systems, too. Water doesn't "think" it needs to shift to a convection system and form hexagonal convection cells, it just does.

And like Meanie said, there doesn't even NEED to be any "thinking". If white bears are hidden more to predators, they're the ones that live long enough to pass on their white fur genes.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

Originally Posted by BluE_MeaniE

Um...are you serious? Being successful means not dying.

And das1ngerplayer, nearly everything you've said absolutely boggles my mind with its ridiculousness.

I love evolution, but coming back to these threads is masochism. I'm sorry.

I know it means they didn't die...lol pretty aware of that. And seriously, if you're gonna complain about how much it pains you to come to these threads why bother with them.

[das1ngerplayer]

[quote]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

There is a mountain of proof that creatures did evolve.

Also, your second sentence is unclear, here. Scientists say, yes, that they have proof, and they do. Believers of the Bible don't have proof; they have faith.

If you're going to support creation science, then your ground is about as stable as grits. Creation scientists' proof is wishy-washy at best and frequently purveyed by very disreputable people. That is, if it hasn't already been debunked (which most of it has). A mountain of evidence versus a handful of evidence isn't really a fair comparison.

You're right, though, in that we don't know what really happened. We could have all been put on this earth yesterday, just with full memories of lives that didn't happen. But what's the point of studying that? Science is about studying evidence and drawing conclusions about what most likely happened.

Science has done just that with evolution, and even if it may not have been what happened up until now, to say that anything else has a firm base of evidence is intellectual dishonesty.

Also: I think studying what happens with species over the next hundred or thousand years will give us a very good look at what probably happened in the past.

This is really pointless but I'll say it anyways. Science has no more proof then the Bible does. Scientists say they have proof and other people may believe them. People who belive in the Bible don't think their ides are correct, they think the scientisst ideas are false. The same goes vice versa. That is what I mean by my second sentence.

I'm not saying science doesn't have a firm base. I believe a lot of science and it's very hard to argue with a lot of it because there's not much else to say. But the Bible goes the same way. There are many facts in the Bible that relate to real objects in our life. Denying either is not very smart. No matter what happens in the coming years there isn't as much a way to disprove the Bible as you can science. If in the coming years nothiong happens in terms of evolution, who knows, that theory may be taken away. As for the Bible you can't disprove that, its basis is very different from a science view but the Bible does cross reference with science many times. Take the dinosaurs for example. Both science and the Bible say they are true meaning something about the Bible makes it true and not a made up story. As for science, it tells us something happened in the past we cannot explain.

[Reach]

Urg.

If you've ever gotten sick you indirectly admit to the fact that evolution is true. If evolution was false then noone would ever get sick. It is absolutely impossible to argue the grounds of Microevolution being false. The debate over macroevolution is usually one of semantics and usually leads to irrelevancies when talking about evolution itself, since the premise (that things evolve) is always going to be true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

tons of evolution evidence. 29+ evidences, actually, that address a lot of things being argued here.

This is really pointless but I'll say it anyways. Science has no more proof then the Bible does. Scientists say they have proof and other people may believe them. People who belive in the Bible don't think their ides are correct, they think the scientisst ideas are false. The same goes vice versa. That is what I mean by my second sentence.

You've got to be kidding me, right? Who has filted this nonsense into your head? Science doesn't make any claims without first providing lots of evidence. Theories are not the same as ideas. You don't 'believe' that science is true; you study things and find evidence to suggest with a high degree of certainty that something is true.

Charles Darwin did not just sit down one day and write the origin of species. Charles Darwin was a scientist that spent a large chunk of his life studying his theory and providing evidences for it. I don't see any whit of evidence that went into crafting anything religion related that pertains to this subject, so don't compare religion and science like they are equals. Stop saying that religious people can ignore science on the same ground scientists can ignore the bible, because the grounds are not even remotely close to being level.

And there are no 'facts' in the bible that are even remotely related to science. Stop talking about the bible like it is to be taken seriously as a form of evidence.

Also, had you actually read the bible you would probably realize how genocidal and atrocious it is. It is filled with stone age ideologies...obviously, as it reflects the time period in which it was written.

[GuidoHunter]

EDIT: balls, ninja'd by Reach...

Originally Posted by das1ngerplayer

Science has no more proof then the Bible does.

...

The Bible is one book that never has changed, never will change, and has maybe a few verses that could be stretched to have anything to do with evolution. Science, on the other hand, has volumes upon volumes of evidence for evolution and ONLY evolution, and is continually being revised and augmented. Where you get the idea that the Bible and science have comparable amounts of evidence for this one idea is beyond me.

Scientists say they have proof and other people may believe them.

Nonono, scientists DO have proof, by the very definitions of proof and evidence.

People who belive in the Bible don't think their ides are correct, they think the scientisst ideas are false.

Remember that comment about your grammar being so poor that what you say comes across as unclear? Yeah, "their" has an unclear antecedent. I presume you mean the pronoun to refer to evolutionists, but who knows; you've switched sides on your points before and said some otherwise ridiculous things...

First of all, you seem to think that scientists and people who believe in the Bible are mutually exclusive groups, which they're not.

Secondly, the latter group only has faith that the former's theories are incorrect. No proof versus a mountain of proof, again.

But the Bible goes the same way.

No, no it doesn't. The Bible has never executed scientific tests or anything like that. Sure, it says some things that human observation could note, so some things it says are scientifically legitmate. However, the very basis of the Bible, God, is a scientific construct. Parting rivers? Eternally burning bushes? So many things in the Bible are scientifically impossible that it CANNOT be used as a source of scientific information. Cannot.

I would have JUST as much proof for my idea that nucleons are made up of elves as whatever the Bible might say about it. Science, however, has PLENTY of proof that they're made up of other things, likely quarks.

Denying either is not very smart.

Wrong. It is scientifically HEALTHY for the knowledge of the world to deny constructs when trying to explain a phenomenon.

If we DON'T deny the Bible, then "God must have done it" could be used as an explanation for EVERYTHING, and science would go NOWHERE. That is UNHEALTHY.

As for the Bible you can't disprove that

You're right, but you can't prove it, either. And if we can't prove what it says, we can't rely on it for information, because it might be wrong.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reach]

Maybe a double dose will finally hammer it into his head deep enough for him to understand it.

[das1ngerplayer]

A few more things to add since you don't understand what I'm saying.

Orininally Posted by GuidoHunter
The Bible is one book that never has changed, never will change, and has maybe a few verses that could be stretched to have anything to do with evolution. Science, on the other hand, has volumes upon volumes of evidence for evolution and ONLY evolution, and is continually being revised and augmented. Where you get the idea that the Bible and science have comparable amounts of evidence for this one idea is beyond me.

Yes, science is changing. It's changes so often one idea that is fact in this time could be fiction in the future. How do we know that once technology advances scientists could prove evolution to be false? The fact is we don't know. Who knows, maybe there will be some way to prove the Bible true.

Nonono, scientists DO have proof, by the very definitions of proof and evidence.

Proof that scientists or athiests think is true, others may not. I can say the same thing for the Bible.

No, no it doesn't. The Bible has never executed scientific tests or anything like that. Sure, it says some things that human observation could note, so some things it says are scientifically legitmate. However, the very basis of the Bible, God, is a scientific construct. Parting rivers? Eternally burning bushes? So many things in the Bible are scientifically impossible that it CANNOT be used as a source of scientific information. Cannot.

I would have JUST as much proof for my idea that nucleons are made up of elves as whatever the Bible might say about it. Science, however, has PLENTY of proof that they're made up of other things, likely quarks.

I never said all of it was realistic. There are many parts in the Bible I find hard to believe but I do anyway. As for the things that do relate, it gives the Bible a basis for saying both it and science can be true.

Wrong. It is scientifically HEALTHY for the knowledge of the world to deny constructs when trying to explain a phenomenon.

If we DON'T deny the Bible, then "God must have done it" could be used as an explanation for EVERYTHING, and science would go NOWHERE. That is UNHEALTHY.

It's not good to deny either the Bible or science. If you deny one you become blind to the other. That doesn't help when your trying to argue about it, which in your case you be the Bible.

You're right, but you can't prove it, either. And if we can't prove what it says, we can't rely on it for information, because it might be wrong.

I'm not saying you can prove either to be true, I'm just stating both science and the Bible are opinions on what we think is correct.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[das1ngerplayer]

Originally Posted by Reach
If you've ever gotten sick you indirectly admit to the fact that evolution is true. If evolution was false then noone would ever get sick. It is absolutely impossible to argue the grounds of Microevolution being false. The debate over macroevolution is usually one of semantics and usually leads to irrelevancies when talking about evolution itself, since the premise (that things evolve) is always going to be true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

tons of evolution evidence. 29+ evidences, actually, that address a lot of things being argued here.

I realize there are micro-organisms existing that keep us alive. My point is how do you know they came from evolution or God? Yes you'd most likely say science has evidence they come from evolution but is it actually proven? Is it still possible for evolution to still be disproved? Yes.

You've got to be kidding me, right? Who has filted this nonsense into your head? Science doesn't make any claims without first providing lots of evidence. Theories are not the same as ideas. You don't 'believe' that science is true; you study things and find evidence to suggest with a high degree of certainty that something is true.

Charles Darwin did not just sit down one day and write the origin of species. Charles Darwin was a scientist that spent a large chunk of his life studying his theory and providing evidences for it. I don't see any whit of evidence that went into crafting anything religion related that pertains to this subject, so don't compare religion and science like they are equals. Stop saying that religious people can ignore science on the same ground scientists can ignore the bible, because the grounds are not even remotely close to being level.

And there are no 'facts' in the bible that are even remotely related to science. Stop talking about the bible like it is to be taken seriously as a form of evidence.

Also, had you actually read the bible you would probably realize how genocidal and atrocious it is. It is filled with stone age ideologies...obviously, as it reflects the time period in which it was written.

My evidence is the Bible, there isn't much I can do to make you read it and actually try to understand what I think. I know there are genocidal stories in the Bible. Just because it's old does not mean it is in any ways false. I'm aware what science has out about evolution. But in my shoes, I don't think science has many 'facts' to prove evolution.

I'll say it again though, I agree with many things science has to say, evolution is not one of them. At many points the Bible and science do cross reference. Unless you are completely anti-God then you know how the two are both related. For someone who doesn't read the Bible or even try to listen to the Bible then that person does not know how the two tie into eachother. If you learn evidence for both sides of this arguement you can actually say the Bible and science are both true in ways. Depending on how far you go either way may depend on what you agree with but it is IMPOSSIBLE to deny the Bible or science.

Think about it before you make some biased comment supporting only science and evolution. (FYI, you are annoying me just as much as I may be annoying you.)