Creation vs. Evolution

[Sas]

Personally, I would not take such a tone...especially if I had once started a thread on scubaboard asking if water could be used in place of lead as ballast when scuba diving.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...I told you that you should have tried to have that thread removed. LOL

I don't think that is quite as bad as saying the Earth is 6000 years old, but hey, whatever!

 

[MikeFerrara]

It isn't. End of story. So you trying to get people to say it is, is a bit weird.

Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution but it is still relevant to the topic of the thread. I'm not trying to get anyone to say anything.

Or, perhaps you didn't explain it well?

I acknoeledge that possibility which is why I suggested that you point out which parts of my explanation weren't clear to you. I'd be happy to try again.

I pay attention but I don't take them seriously. Yeah, I don't really respect people that don't find reality convincing.

I'm sorry but that just sounds rude and arrogant.

I attended study at:
- Waverly Christian Fellowship (now Citylife - one of the biggest churches in Australia - statement of faith About CityLife Church)
-Good News Fellowship where I was also in charge of teaching Sunday School so was required to do a course for that (not sure if this is a requirement everywhere though) EDIT: removed incorrect link though doctrine is the same as Citylife
-Dandenong Church (that was when I was very young though so wouldn't classify it as proper study).
-I was also mentored by a guy who attended Kinsley College - you can read their statement of faith here--> Kingsley College - Statement of Faith. That was more a home biblical school though.

I'm headed to work soom but I'll take a look later.

So yea, so far I am yet to see a convincing argument that I have misinterpreted or do not know the Bible, other than that I have taken a different interpretation to your own. An example please?

I think there are plenty of example in our previous discussion.

For example? I know the Bible well, as do you, but we both interpret it differently.

A key difference here may be that I do NOT claim to know the Bible well.

Sure, tell that to the Anglican Church at the moment. I am sure many Christians agree on the fundamentals such as 'there is a God'. But I doubt there is a consensus about the theory of evolution though, as many Christians reconcile the theory with their own belief system so there is a big split between Young and Old Earth Creationism for one thing. Young Earth Creationists are in the minority (well at least in my country - and I hope yours as well).

The funamentals include much more than "there is a God". There is some split here but the age of the earth, specifically, has little to do with it.

Also previously you dismissed the Catholic church's views, however where I live, they make up the majority of Christians, so yeah, more Christians support MY views on evolution than yours. However, abiogenesis seems to be were the split lies, but as many people have pointed out to you, that is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

I never intended to "dismiss" the Catholic churches views.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I don't think that is quite as bad as saying the Earth is 6000 years old, but hey, whatever!

Go try it and then say that

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm still waiting for you creationists to come up with something, anything. You've had a couple of days now and still nothing. Shall I give up expecting something from you?

BTW, I know what it's like to wait. After catching up on the thread, I see that I'm still waiting for something from warthaug.

 

[Sas]

Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution but it is still relevant to the topic of the thread. I'm not trying to get anyone to say anything. I acknoeledge that possibility which is why I suggested that you point out which parts of my explanation weren't clear to you. I'd be happy to try again.

Sure, and as people have stated abiogenesis is not well explained yet. I don't know where else there is to go with that argument.

I'm sorry but that just sounds rude and arrogant.

Well it was not my intent. I was basically saying I would not respect the views of a person who is going to go and deny the reality of the world. Why should people deserve to have their arguments given equal weighting as fact? It makes no sense.

A key difference here may be that I do NOT claim to know the Bible well.

Then why claim I know nothing about it? I do know the Bible, I've read it and studied it but you have repeatedly said I know nothing about it without ever giving examples other than quibbles over interpretation. There have been massive schisms over the years in various Church's so differing views about scripture is hardly a revolutionary idea...

The funamentals include much more than "there is a God". There is some split here but the age of the earth, specifically, has little to do with it.

Of course. But didn't have time to type them all out. I gave two that are quite major. The issue of homosexuality (i.e. what is going on in the Anglican Church at the moment) and the issue of how humans came about. I believe these are pretty huge differences in interpreting scripture?

I never intended to "dismiss" the Catholic churches views.

Well you did say this "You mentioned Catholics. The Catholic church seems to be an example of what you get when you let worldly matters alter your view of scripture."

So basically you are dismissing their view of scripture as they have let worldly views alter their interpretation? That is what you seem to do to any interpretation of the Bible that does not match your own...

 

[Warthaug]

Interesting. Thanks.
By this, do you mean the fact that "species" is a somewhat arbitrary classification based on some equally arbitrary traits?

Thal already covered this, but just to add a little bit more...

There is no scientific definition of "species" which is universally accepted. The geneticists, microbiologists, virologists, cladists, phylogenists, classical phyloginists, botanists, and probably a bunch more that I cannot think of right now all have different (and some times more than one per group) definitions of what qualifies as a species.

The problem really has two routs in modern biology (we'll ignore the centuries of conflict between different groups of phylogenists for now...):

1) The vast majority of species on this earth do not reproduce sexually. Meaning the classical definition of a species being "any population who can produce viable (i.e. fertile) offspring" doesn't really work in most cases. Definitions of what qualifies as a species in non-sexually reproducing organisms is up in the air, although most people will accept a >30% genetic divergence as being a truly separate species.

2) Even among sexually reproducing species, the "barrier" between species is foggy. Horses and donkeys can reproduce, but their offspring (mules/hinneys) are generally sterile. Hence, they are considered to be separate species. But, occasionally fertile mules are born, which would mean that the are the same species...

Another example, which causes even more headaches for phylogenists, is the case of the two "species" of European mouse (Mus musculis castaneus , and Mus musculis domesticus). Take one from England (musculis) and one from East Europe (castaneus), and they cannot breed - so they're different species. But in the Alps you'll find mice which are both a mix of the two, and which can interbreed with both. Similar examples of "foggy boarders" between species are all over - most insects are like this, some of the different species of wild dogs, etc, etc, etc.

In the "real world" species don't really exist - instead you get gradients of differentiation, like the ones I described above. Eventually there'll be enough differences to make breeding impossible, but exactly where on that gradient you define a "species" is purely arbitrary, and quite artificial.

EDIT: I should have finished off the last paragraph by saying: "two sexually-reproducing populations which cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring are clearly different species, beyond that, its anyones guess."

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

It's shorter than proponents of evolution and more accurate than Darwinists. Take your argument about abiogenesis up with your contemporaries, like Gould, who obviously disagree with you.

Thanx for proving that you are so closed minded about things that you'll not bother to check things up, even when the exact citation is provided for you. Gould is adamant, in many of his works, that they two are completely separate thoeries, phenomena, and areas of science. He spends a whole chapter in "Rock of Ages" criticizing creationists for failing to differentiate the two.

That criticism, BTW, would be directed at people like yourself...

Maybe I should have put the word "naturally occurring" in there. In a closed-loop system where you control all the variables, I'm sure there are quite a few possibilities.

Maybe you should have looked up all of those papers I posted the first time, as the vast majority were naturally occurring mutations in mammalian species.

Unless, of course, you think scientists are going out and feeding every animal, human, plant, protazoan, fungi, bacteria, and archeans on this planet mutagens immediately before they reproduce, while at the same time, maintaining the entirety of the earths biosphere to be favorable to those mutation...

Of course, neither of your replies are a surprise to me - you're just using the exact same tactic as all the other creationsits - ignoring inconvenient facts, even when they (and the relevant citations) are spoon fed to you...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

I don't know. I think much of the science regarding creation is pretty thin.

As in none being thin? Most creationist "evidence" consists of things like complaining that there is a 1% error in radiodating measrures, meaning if you go out 10²² standard deviations, the earth could be 6,000 years old.

Sorry thal, just had to steal that bitty from you.

As evidence for it's strength some present he argument that there are no viable competing theories.

It's a lot more than that - over 1,000,000 scientific studies constitute the evidence for evolution, and evolutionary theory is both based on, and in many cases predicted, the results of those studies.

Evolution has stood up against many completing theories - saltism and lamarkism in the 1800's; mutationalism in the early 1900's; neutralism, PE and selfish-gene-ism (I don't think that has a formal name) in the late 1900's/early 2000's.

And its stood up and either disproven (saltism, lamarkism) or absorbed the correct parts (all the others). So its got a long history of success.

But the main reason it is so good, by everyday standards, is its utility - it just plain works. You can use it to design experiments, and it works. You can use it to develop products, and it works. You can use it to predict what should be seen in nature, and it works. You can use it to design treatment regimens, and it works. The fact that it takes the whole, diverse field of biology - every thing from biochemistry, to ecology, to zoology - and ties it all together into a neat package in which every discipline is linked via a common thread - is a nice bonus as well.

Being the "best" isn't the same as being good.

However, having all of the above most defenitly makes you good. Compare that to what evidence creationism has
.
.
.
nothing. No evidence, no predictability, no utility outside of the church walls...

Bryan

 

[coachpill]

H2Andy>>>>"wow ... i'm blown away by this"

Sorry you are blown away.

H2Andy>>>>"did you say you were a science teacher?"

Yup

H2Andy>>>>"it sounds like you just don't understand science at all, and evolution even less"

Actually, I do know/understand it pretty well. And the example I gave (singe celled prokaryote to human, or other life form) is supposedly explained by evolution...though not observable.

H2Andy>>>>"seriously ... dude ... "

Seriously.

H2Andy>>>>"let's try this one and see if you can agree:

populations can change over time."

Agreed.

H2Andy>>>>"populations can change greatly over great amounts of time."

Agreed.

H2Andy>>>>"n'est pas?"

Quite

I won't bother quoting the rest of your post as it contains nothing but assumptions.

The model was...don't we directly observe life forms varying only within kinds...

Thanks.

 

[coachpill]

Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring. Various parts of this definition are there to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:

• Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
• Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for whatever reason.
• Animals whose offspring are normally sterile.

But then you've got ring species that knock all of that into a cocked hat. They present an interesting problem for those who have a need to divide the living world into discrete species, as well as for those who believe that evolution does not create new species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species becomes two distinct species. Talk about intermediate forms! There are an infinate number available for examination.

Agreed. The species definition is a hard one to pin down.

Ring species are cool. I read about the herring gull and the black backed gull in Britain(?). Apparently they do not interbreed. Go westward to North America and the gulls become less herring like and more black backed like...though all able to interbreed with the herring gulls from Britain. Go further west and they become even more black backed though able to interbreed with the previous (eastward) species. Not until you get back to Britain do the populations differ so much that they cannot interbreed.

I would say that the clearly 2 separate species of gulls in Britain do not represent any additional information being added via mutations, but do exhibit that speciation can occur within a kind.