# Thread: Creationists and Evolutionists Are Correct

1. Creation verses Evolution. The debate rags on, but what if Creationists and Evolutionists are both right?

Yes, there are many things you will read in the Bible that seem to contradict modern science like the proposal that the universe was created in six days (and God rested on the seventh) verses the proposal that the universe started out as a singularity, then there was a Big Bang, then everything slowly evolved over billions of years.

But both proposals are correct if you take into account Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

According to Einstein's theory, measurements of time, space and motion are relative, meaning they depend on the relative position of the observer. For example, an observer positioned in outer space will see the Earth hurling through space at a great speed. Yet, an observer on the ground will feel the Earth to be stationary and will see the stars, sun and moon move around the Earth.

But Einstein's theory does not stop there, it also proposes that the speed of light is constant and that it is time and space that are variable. That's where the theory gets really weird:

Let's imagine you have a twin. You decide to take a trip in a spaceship that can travel close to the speed of light. Before you leave, you and your twin synchronize your watches. After you start your journey, your rocket accelerates to near-light speed, then something really strange happens.

Your watch slows down relative to your twin's. For every second that passes on your watch, years pass for your twin on Earth. When you finally return home, your twin is old enough to be your Grandpappy, while you have barely aged!

Here is Einstein's equation for time dilation:

Te = Ts/sqrt(1 - [(v/c) squared])

Te = the time elapsed on earth. Ts = the time elapsed on the spaceship. v = the velocity of the spaceship, and c = the speed of light.

The equation indicates that if the spaceship's velocity (v) is relatively small compared to (c) the speed of light, then the difference of the passage of time for each twin would be negligible. However, if you plug into the equation the speed of light (c) for velocity (v), you get:

Te = Ts/sqrt(1 - [(c/c) squared])
Te = Ts/1-1
Te = Ts/0
Ts/0 = Te
Ts = 0Te
Ts = 0

If your spaceship travels at the speed of light, Ts = 0, or, time stops. That means you could go anywhere in the universe in no time at all--instantaneously! You could accomplish or create anything in an instant!

Of course, your twin on Earth would not see it that way. For him/her, billions of years will have passed.

Therefore, the universe really was created in only six days if God's velocity was close to the speed of light. In fact, God is often associated with "the light." And, since scientists did not move at the speed of light, they observed and calculated the passage of time to be billions of years.

When God rested on the seventh day, he was not moving at the speed of light, and so the seventh day was a normal Earth day. That is why the Sabbath does not last billions of years. Too bad. Wouldn't it be great if you could work six days and then take a billion years off?

2.

3. Originally Posted by williampinn
Of course, your twin on Earth would not see it that way. For him/her, billions of years will have passed.

Therefore, the universe really was created in only six days if God's velocity was close to the speed of light.
It's an interesting argument, except for one minor flaw which is encapsulated in the quote. Can you guess what it is?

4. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by williampinn
Of course, your twin on Earth would not see it that way. For him/her, billions of years will have passed.

Therefore, the universe really was created in only six days if God's velocity was close to the speed of light.
It's an interesting argument, except for one minor flaw which is encapsulated in the quote. Can you guess what it is?
Other than the twin having an unlimited life span, I see no flaw in my main points. If the twin could live forever, from his perspective, billions of years will have passed. The "argument" simply mirrors Einstein's theory. The immortal twin is simply a device to show how the theory works, as is the rocket that travels at light speed. I believe such devices are called metaphors. They are not meant to be real, only imaginary for the purpose of illustration.

5. Even ignoring the whole "six days" thing, the biblical account of creation hopelessly clashes with modern science. For example, the bible says that the earth was created before the sun and stars, that birds were created before reptiles (indeed, before any land animals), etc. The time issue is only a small part of it.

And there's still the minor issue that humans, so far as we can tell, evolved over time. The bible, on the other hand, claims that humans were specially created instantaneously.

6. Originally Posted by williampinn

Other than the twin having an unlimited life span, I see no flaw in my main points. If the twin could live forever, from his perspective, billions of years will have passed.
Exactly, so the twin would still be witnessing the creation today, since god can only travel at the speed of light and wouldn't have had the "time" to finish.

7. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Even ignoring the whole "six days" thing, the biblical account of creation hopelessly clashes with modern science. For example, the bible says that the earth was created before the sun and stars, that birds were created before reptiles (indeed, before any land animals), etc. The time issue is only a small part of it.

And there's still the minor issue that humans, so far as we can tell, evolved over time. The bible, on the other hand, claims that humans were specially created instantaneously.
I originally thought the six-day thing to be a hopeless contradiction, but now it does not seem so hopeless. If you step back and look at the big picture, you will see that what we regard as hopeless contradictions, may not be hopeless. After all, we are not God, nor are we omniscient. Science has evolved quite a bit and will continue to evolve. For now, we think the sun came before the earth, etc. We will consider ourselves right until...

8. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by williampinn

Other than the twin having an unlimited life span, I see no flaw in my main points. If the twin could live forever, from his perspective, billions of years will have passed.
Exactly, so the twin would still be witnessing the creation today, since god can only travel at the speed of light and wouldn't have had the "time" to finish.
LOL! A. The creation, as defined by the Bible, is completed, so the twin would not be witnessing it today. B. At the speed of light, God only needs an instant to complete the job, so he did not need additional time.

9. This is nothing but a thought experiment .

The bible is a total falsehood because it is born of human minds.

The Laws of Consdervation are far more credible than the writings of ancient minds with limited knowledge.

Cosmo

10. have you considered the fact that you may all be wrong?

11. Originally Posted by williampinn
I originally thought the six-day thing to be a hopeless contradiction, but now it does not seem so hopeless. If you step back and look at the big picture, you will see that what we regard as hopeless contradictions, may not be hopeless. After all, we are not God, nor are we omniscient. Science has evolved quite a bit and will continue to evolve. For now, we think the sun came before the earth, etc. We will consider ourselves right until...
Until what? Until we decide that the earth existed before stars? That birds came before land animals?

12. Originally Posted by williampinn

LOL! A. The creation, as defined by the Bible, is completed, so the twin would not be witnessing it today. B. At the speed of light, God only needs an instant to complete the job, so he did not need additional time.
I understand that, from "gods" reference frame, but what about the frame of reference of the twin? What will he observe of a god moving at the speed of light?

13. Originally Posted by redrighthand
have you considered the fact that you may all be wrong?
Thank you! The whole point of the essay is that we may not really know what we think we know.

14. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Originally Posted by williampinn
I originally thought the six-day thing to be a hopeless contradiction, but now it does not seem so hopeless. If you step back and look at the big picture, you will see that what we regard as hopeless contradictions, may not be hopeless. After all, we are not God, nor are we omniscient. Science has evolved quite a bit and will continue to evolve. For now, we think the sun came before the earth, etc. We will consider ourselves right until...
Until what? Until we decide that the earth existed before stars? That birds came before land animals?
What came before what depends on your frame of reference. Here is one of Einstein's thought experiments: A man puts two poles in the ground X distance apart between two railroad tracks, he stands at the midpoint of the vector of the two poles. He sees lightning strike the two poles simultaneously. Another man on a train heading west and parallel to the vector of the poles will see the western pole struck first by lightning then the eastern pole struck second. Because he is moving west on the train, the light reflected off the western pole will reach him first. A third man is heading east on another train, only he sees the eastern pole is struck first, because the eastern pole is closer to him.

Let's imagine you were there to witness creation. The Sun and Earth are both created, but you are traveling at a great speed toward the Earth. From your point of reference, you would see the Earth being created before the Sun. If you reversed your direction, you would see the opposite.

We understand cause and effect and the order of events the way we do only because of our frame of reference. When God spoke to the profits, he could have been telling them the story from his point of view, not ours.

15. Originally Posted by williampinn
When God spoke to the profits, he could have been telling them the story from his point of view, not ours.
If the prophets spiritually heard God...what they understood is how their fallible mind interpreted it...depended on the mind's prior conditioning...hence you have various religions, each claiming to have the correct words of God. If the prophets physically heard God, they were schizophrenic...or wished to make profits.

16. Originally Posted by kkawohl
Originally Posted by williampinn
When God spoke to the profits, he could have been telling them the story from his point of view, not ours.
If the prophets spiritually heard God...what they understood is how their fallible mind interpreted it...depended on the mind's prior conditioning...hence you have various religions, each claiming to have the correct words of God. If the prophets physically heard God, they were schizophrenic...or wished to make profits.
Or, there simply are no gods and they were schizophrenic, a more probable answer.

17. Originally Posted by (Q)
Or, there simply are no gods and they were schizophrenic, a more probable answer.
I think most were driven by power or wealth rather than schizophrenia.

Gods are whatever one wishes them to be...so, if inspiration is received from god, so be it...I capitulate.

18. Originally Posted by kkawohl
Gods are whatever one wishes them to be...
Many wish for gods to be real and to exist. Of course, wishful thinking is exactly what it is. If gods did exist, we would all know it and there wouldn't be schizophrenic prophets in which everyone places their misguided faith.

19. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl
Gods are whatever one wishes them to be...
Many wish for gods to be real and to exist. Of course, wishful thinking is exactly what it is. If gods did exist, we would all know it and there wouldn't be schizophrenic prophets in which everyone places their misguided faith.
Sorry, but if we would all know that gods exist, they would no longer be gods.

Faith of a continuance of the spirit is like being in a state of blissfulness...rather than the depressing thought of a forever nonexistence...so pick your poison.

20. Originally Posted by kkawohl

Sorry, but if we would all know that gods exist, they would no longer be gods.
That makes no sense. Explain.

Faith of a continuance of the spirit is like being in a state of blissfulness...rather than the depressing thought of a forever nonexistence...so pick your poison.
Well, if I wanted to ignore reality, I could pick the fantasy and live in a "state of blissfulness."

Are you depressed with reality, is that why you chose the fantasy?

21. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl

Sorry, but if we would all know that gods exist, they would no longer be gods.
That makes no sense. Explain. Only our spirit can interact with the spiritual existence (God). Our conditioned brain translates this spiritual interaction. No independent physical knowledge of God can exist. One would have to be completely spirit to have "knowledge" of God and then one is a part of God...and God is then no longer a supreme authority.
Faith of a continuance of the spirit is like being in a state of blissfulness...rather than the depressing thought of a forever nonexistence...so pick your poison.
Well, if I wanted to ignore reality, I could pick the fantasy and live in a "state of blissfulness."

Are you depressed with reality, is that why you chose the fantasy?
Reality is, all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you.

22. Originally Posted by kkawohl
Originally Posted by williampinn
When God spoke to the profits, he could have been telling them the story from his point of view, not ours.
If the prophets spiritually heard God...what they understood is how their fallible mind interpreted it...depended on the mind's prior conditioning...hence you have various religions, each claiming to have the correct words of God. If the prophets physically heard God, they were schizophrenic...or wished to make profits.
Or...if the prophets were each in a different reference frame, their minds need not have been falible or schizophrenic, nor did they need to make profits. Look at all the brilliant minds who live today. Do they all share the same opinion?

23. Originally Posted by williampinn
Were you there?...if the prophets were each in a different reference frame, their minds need not have been falible or schizophrenic
Physicaly hearing God is in question...prophets' "spirit" can interact with God.

See http://urantia.us/urantia_united_summation.htm

24. [quote="kkawohl"]
Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl

Sorry, but if we would all know that gods exist, they would no longer be gods.
That makes no sense. Explain. Only our spirit can interact with the spiritual existence (God). Our conditioned brain translates this spiritual interaction. No independent physical knowledge of God can exist. One would have to be completely spirit to have "knowledge" of God and then one is a part of God...and God is then no longer a supreme authority.
Of course your point is moot if you are not completely spirit. You presume to know what will happen if you were completely spirit. Further, if you became a cell in God's spiritual body, I would speculate that the brain of that body would still be in charge.

25. Originally Posted by kkawohl
Originally Posted by williampinn
Were you there?...if the prophets were each in a different reference frame, their minds need not have been falible or schizophrenic
Physicaly hearing God is in question...prophets' "spirit" can interact with God.

See http://urantia.us/urantia_united_summation.htm
OK, so how are they schizophrenic? Schizophrenics suffer from delusions. Schizophrenia involves the emotions and intellect but not the spirit which, by your defintion is nonphysical. Emotions and intellect are manifested by subatomic particles and energy inside our brains, so they are physical.

26. Originally Posted by williampinn
Originally Posted by kkawohl
Originally Posted by williampinn
Were you there?...if the prophets were each in a different reference frame, their minds need not have been falible or schizophrenic
Physicaly hearing God is in question...prophets' "spirit" can interact with God.

See http://urantia.us/urantia_united_summation.htm
OK, so how are they schizophrenic? Schizophrenics suffer from delusions. Schizophrenia involves the emotions and intellect but not the spirit which, by your defintion is nonphysical. Emotions and intellect are manifested by subatomic particles and energy inside our brains, so they are physical.
Physically hearing voices is categorized as schizophrenia.

Dr. Lommel said, "you can call consciousness outside the brain "spirit", if you like, but this can be confusing because not everybody has the same ideas about what exactly "spirit" should be. And there are several "levels" of consciousness, waking consciousness, dreaming consciousness, "subconsciousness", collective human consciousness, morphogenetic consciousness, higher consciousness, Cosmic consciousness, Divine consciousness. All these levels of consciousness are interconnected, and available, also during our life in our body.

During life we can receive aspects of our consciousness into our body as our waking consciousness. During cardiac arrest, the functioning of the brain and of other cells in our body stops because of anoxia. The electromagnetic fields of our neurons and other cells disappear, and the possibility of resonance, the interface between consciousness and our physical body is interrupted, and our heightened consciousness may be experienced outside the body, sometimes in another dimension without our material concept of time and space. The almost unavoidable conclusion is that at the time of physical death consciousness will continue to be experienced in another dimension, in an invisible and immaterial world, the phase-space, in which all past, present and future is enclosed. Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an NDE did not quite die, but they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain”.

27. Originally Posted by kkawohl
Reality is, all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you.
Yes, but it's funny how some peoples versions of reality do not agree with reality. They choose to fill it with the invisible and undetectable and call it reality.

Dr. Lommel said, "you can call consciousness outside the brain "spirit", if you like, but this can be confusing because not everybody has the same ideas about what exactly "spirit" should be. And there are several "levels" of consciousness, waking consciousness, dreaming consciousness, "subconsciousness", collective human consciousness, morphogenetic consciousness, higher consciousness, Cosmic consciousness, Divine consciousness. All these levels of consciousness are interconnected, and available, also during our life in our body.
We already know those "levels of consciousness" have not been observed, hence the good Dr. Lommel is either lying or delusional. Most likely lying in order to sell his book to the gullible.

The electromagnetic fields of our neurons and other cells disappear, and the possibility of resonance, the interface between consciousness and our physical body is interrupted, and our heightened consciousness may be experienced outside the body, sometimes in another dimension without our material concept of time and space. The almost unavoidable conclusion is that at the time of physical death consciousness will continue to be experienced in another dimension, in an invisible and immaterial world, the phase-space, in which all past, present and future is enclosed.
Pure fantasy, perhaps Dr. Lommel was writing a science-fiction book?

Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an NDE did not quite die, but they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain”.
And since they did not have a functioning brain, they're "recollections" cannot be taken seriously. Do you understand that concept?

28. Originally Posted by (Q)
Yes, but it's funny how some peoples versions of reality do not agree with reality. They choose to fill it with the invisible and undetectable and call it reality.

We already know those "levels of consciousness" have not been observed, hence the good Dr. Lommel is either lying or delusional. Most likely lying in order to sell his book to the gullible.

Pure fantasy, perhaps Dr. Lommel was writing a science-fiction book?

And since they did not have a functioning brain, they're "recollections" cannot be taken seriously. Do you understand that concept?

29. Q makes sense to me. Do you assume an acidhead's trip is real, or do you assume his brain's frizzled from the acid? The guy having this nde is dying. His brain is short circuiting. I'm not amazed weird stuff's happening, just like i'm not amazed an acidhead trips his tits off.

30. Originally Posted by TvEye
Q makes sense to me. Do you assume an acidhead's trip is real, or do you assume his brain's frizzled from the acid? The guy having this nde is dying. His brain is short circuiting. I'm not amazed weird stuff's happening, just like i'm not amazed an acidhead trips his tits off.
My answer to Q on another thread: You know Q, I would have agreed with you 100% if not for my personal weird spiritual experienses at http://urantia.us/urantia_united_summation.htm
And oddly enough, I consider myself to be a non-religious realist...and I'm not selling any books for profit...they can all be accessed free.

31. Let's scrap the LHC and spend the world's money researching NDE's. We'll build a ten billion dollar past life regression machine.

32. The main point of evolution is not billion years vs 6 days, but creation without designer. Creationist insists on the existence of Designer, evolutionist insists on relying only on a few key principles that keep lives getting more complex.

33. Given that darwin was a theist when he wrote 'on the origin of the species', i don't think creation without a designer was the point he was trying to make.

34. Originally Posted by kkawohl
my personal weird spiritual experienses...
You can make the claim for such experiences, yet you can't distinguish your claim from the imaginative. And, it's pretty obvious you really, really want to believe in this claim as it tends to agree with your religious beliefs.

35. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl
my personal weird spiritual experienses...
You can make the claim for such experiences, yet you can't distinguish your claim from the imaginative. And, it's pretty obvious you really, really want to believe in this claim as it tends to agree with your religious beliefs.
Reality is, all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you.

My beliefs are based on transcendology.

36. TvEye wrote
Given that darwin was a theist when he wrote 'on the origin of the species', i don't think creation without a designer was the point he was trying to make.
So, in your opinion, what was Darwin trying to convey?

37. Originally Posted by kkawohl

Reality is, all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you.
No, it isn't. Reality is the physical world around us in which science describes how it all works.

My beliefs are based on transcendology.
Therefore, your beliefs are based on fabrications and lies.

38. Originally Posted by TvEye
Given that darwin was a theist when he wrote 'on the origin of the species', i don't think creation without a designer was the point he was trying to make.
The word 'creation' does colloquially imply a designer, but that's not all that relevent because Darwin was enacting purely natural mechanisms for the evolution of life.

However, that doesn't even matter. Evolution has changed so much in the intervening time, it's the equivalent of questioning the existence of modern racecars because they weren't the point Henry Ford tried to make with the Model T.

39. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl
My beliefs are based on transcendology.
Therefore, your beliefs are based on fabrications and lies.
Apparently you have no idea what transcendology is...so I will explain...it asserts that truthfulness and rationality in religions are truths that can be substantiated by science or those that cannot be proven to be incorrect. It is a doctrine and proclamation that spiritual transcendence and spiritual interaction, if one believes this to be an actuality, could only be possible between the spiritual existence and the spirit of man. Supernatural acts performed by physical or spiritual beings in the physical universe are not capable of existing or transpiring.

40. If spirit cannot interact with the physical world, then how can our (supposedly) spirit affect our physical behavior?

41. Originally Posted by prasit
If spirit cannot interact with the physical world, then how can our (supposedly) spirit affect our physical behavior?
Spirit is...psyche; mind, conscience, consciousness.

42. If one is dead, his conscience cannot live on.

43. Originally Posted by prasit
If one is dead, his conscience cannot live on.
Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death.

Q. After my last two experiences my mind was somewhat trance-like or in a daze for a couple of days and my spirit seemed to pre-occupy my mental faculties for several months afterwards, it endeavored to interpret what had transpired. I have since that time unsuccessfully attempted to repeat these episodes several times. Does your research confirm that deep mental stress could be a contributing factor toward these incidents? http://urantia.us/urantia_united_summation.htm

Dr. Lommel said, “Such understanding fundamentally changes one’s opinion about death, because of the almost unavoidable conclusion that at the time of physical death consciousness will continue to be experienced in another dimension, in an invisible and immaterial world, the phase-space, in which all past, present and future is enclosed. Research on NDE cannot give us the irrefutable scientific proof of this conclusion, because people with an NDE did not quite die, but they all were very, very close to death, without a functioning brain”.

44. Originally Posted by kkawohl
Spirit is...psyche; mind, conscience, consciousness.
That is completely and patently wrong. The mind, the consciousness have nothing to do with so-called 'spirits.' You have a very vivid imagination.

If consciousness has "died" so has the brain.

45. Originally Posted by kkawohl

Apparently you have no idea what transcendology is...
I do understand, and here is the key phrase in your explanation which is the difference:

if one believes this to be an actuality...
So essentially, you believe it, despite the fact it's gibberish.

46. Originally Posted by kkawohl
Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death.
You keep copy/pasting the same thing over and over, which could be considered spam. Do you actually have anything to say yourself or is that all you can muster?

Yes, we know those quacks are into making a fast buck off the gullible, and we know that you are one of those gullible.

Anything else?

47. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl
Melvin Morse, MD, Pediatrics; Michael Sabom, MD, Cardiology; Peter Fenwick, MD, Neuropsychiatry and Pim van Lommel, MD, Cardiology all have one thing in common. They're in pursuit of verifiable evidence of life after death.
You keep copy/pasting the same thing over and over, which could be considered spam. Do you actually have anything to say yourself or is that all you can muster?

Yes, we know those quacks are into making a fast buck off the gullible, and we know that you are one of those gullible.

Anything else?
I bow to you Forum Professor ...did you get your doctorate degree on this forum or from another source? hey, that's a good one, you are the source, you are God. :wink:

48. Originally Posted by kkawohl

I bow to you Forum Professor ...did you get your doctorate degree on this forum or from another source? hey, that's a good one, you are the source, you are God. :wink:
So, it would appear that in fact all you can do is copy/paste, and that you have nothing to say yourself other than childish remarks.

49. prasit (on Saturday) said:

Creationist insists on the existence of Designer, evolutionist insists on relying only on a few key principles that keep lives getting more complex.
Who says that lives (life forms do you mean?) keep getting more complex.

What is it in evolutionary thinking that seems to insist that evolution is always onward and upward? Why is there no consideration that evolution could also include a process of simplifying life forms?

One of the problems in the evolution/designer discussion is that if there is evidence which may indicated devolution, the evolutionists discount that while the designers attempt to say it defeats evolution.

I read a sci-fi story one time which was based on the premise that our world is actually traveling back in time. That is, the big bang (a term which had not even been coined at that time) was the end of time rather than the beginning. In some ways, I think it made more sense than what we have.

Our human process of designing usually focuses on bigger and better with more and more bells and whistles. It has gotten to the point that I can hardly use modern devices such as watches and cell phones and computer games.

I don't think it is because I am stupid, but because I grew up in a world which was not filled with intuitive machines. I remember getting a watch once and I could not figure out how to set it the way I wanted even using the directions. I handed it to my son who set it up without even reading the destructions.

Anyway, what I was going to say is that if evolution is only onward and upward, I think that would accrue to the benefit of the side of design as opposed to evolution by natural processes.

If the natural law of "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" holds true, it would seem that nature would be doing and undoing stuff in the field of evolution.

50. Originally Posted by kkawohl
I bow to you Forum Professor ...did you get your doctorate degree on this forum or from another source? hey, that's a good one, you are the source, you are God. :wink:

Originally Posted by daytonturner
Who says that lives (life forms do you mean?) keep getting more complex.

What is it in evolutionary thinking that seems to insist that evolution is always onward and upward? Why is there no consideration that evolution could also include a process of simplifying life forms?

Anyway, what I was going to say is that if evolution is only onward and upward, I think that would accrue to the benefit of the side of design as opposed to evolution by natural processes.

If the natural law of "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" holds true, it would seem that nature would be doing and undoing stuff in the field of evolution.
When you look carefully at these two processes of development, the one by evolution to the one by human design efforts, you will find that they are not really all that different. Organisms including people are constantly trying new things and if there are any selective or discriminatory forces in the environment then these creative efforts are "weeded" out accordingly. (Dayton would be correct in pointing out that complexity is not what evolution selects for, but he would be wrong to think that this is what selects in human design efforts. It is true that the market environment often does select for "more bang for the buck" which can be related to complexity, but at the same time it tends to select for "any idiot can use it" as well.) What the less informed evolutionist often fails to understand is that the "designers" (evolving organism in the case of evolution) learn to anticipate the selective forces and avoid what is not going to work.

Take this forum for example, it gives its titles on the basis of quantity only, not quality. Thus the only selective force in operation is the ability of people to put up with participants like Q (there are many others) and keep on posting. Thus it is kind of like an anti-discriminatory discrimination, it selects against participants with discrimination or discernment - you know participants with standards in regards to the level of background noise they are willing to put up with. This is not entirely a bad thing, for forums with more discriminating standards can tend to be slow and quiet at times and the discussions with the extremely intellegent participants can be brutally challenging at times. Here at scienceforum.com we generally challenge the tolerance of the participants a little more than their intellect, but that serves a purpose too and every forum should not be the same.

51. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Thus the only selective force in operation is the ability of people to put up with participants like Q (there are many others) and keep on posting. Thus it is kind of like an anti-discriminatory discrimination
Always the victim, eh Mitchell? Poor baby. You have to keep putting up with those who keep reminding you that your god delusions aren't part of reality.

Sorry to keep bursting your bubble, bub.

52. Originally Posted by (Q)
god delusions aren't part of reality.

Sorry to keep bursting your bubble, bub.
We all live in an energy bubble within a larger energy bubble called earth...you can't burst another's bubble unless you physically neutralize him...and even then the energy remains to be a part of The Source of energy, god...that is reality...bub

53. Your subconscious is showing. You do indeed live in a bubble.

54. Mitchell said:

Here at scienceforum.com we generally challenge the tolerance of the participants a little more than their intellect,
Is this because there are some regular posters here who have very little intellect to challenge? I have looked at a few other forums where it appears participants have neither intellect nor tolerance.

55. Originally Posted by daytonturner
Mitchell said:

Here at scienceforum.com we generally challenge the tolerance of the participants a little more than their intellect,
Is this because there are some regular posters here who have very little intellect to challenge? I have looked at a few other forums where it appears participants have neither intellect nor tolerance.
Yeah you are probably right. I seen a few like that. I guess my comments were more relative to the other forums I participate in. Anyway the whole last paragraph was intended as toungue in cheek for amusement sake.

Originally Posted by (Q)
Always the victim, eh Mitchell? Poor baby. You have to keep putting up with those who keep reminding you that your god delusions aren't part of reality.

Sorry to keep bursting your bubble, bub.
See!

What would we do without this kind of comic relief?

56. Back to the topic; I say that Creationist insists on the existence of Designer, evolutionist insists on relying only on a few key principles that keep lives getting more complex. As Mitch pointed out, the complexity is not the purpose but the by-product. Still, the conclusion is the Creationism and Evolution cannot be reconciled.

57. prasit reiterated:

I say that Creationist insists on the existence of Designer, evolutionist insists on relying only on a few key principles that keep lives getting more complex.
I think you have capture the essence of creationism in that if there is creation, there must be a creator; if there is design, there must be a designer.

It would be interesting to know what you consider the key principles that keep lives (again, do you actually mean life forms?) becoming more complex.

I really thought I addressed this in a previous post, so I am not sure what you are looking for. I think more development of the "few key principles" might elicit more response. Mitchell somewhat addressed the idea of devolution which I raised in that previous post, but prasit did not.

58. Originally Posted by daytonturner
prasit reiterated:

I say that Creationist insists on the existence of Designer, evolutionist insists on relying only on a few key principles that keep lives getting more complex.
It would be interesting to know what you consider the key principles that keep lives (again, do you actually mean life forms?) becoming more complex.

I really thought I addressed this in a previous post, so I am not sure what you are looking for. I think more development of the "few key principles" might elicit more response. Mitchell somewhat addressed the idea of devolution which I raised in that previous post, but prasit did not.
Since the real driving force of evolution is variation not selection, the primary product of the process is not complexity but DIVERSITY. But a consequence of this is that in order to produce complexity it is sufficient that there is no selection against complexity. The big failure of the whole irreducible complexity argument is found in this fact, because it means that every increase in complexity does not need to justified by some survival advantage. The survival advantages of many developments like the advantage of many scientific discoveries come by serendipity. Even if an incremental increase in complexity may have no survival advantage eventually advantages are realized at some later stage. Just as serendipity is indispensible in understanding the value of pure scientific research so also does it work in the efforts of the species to explore the diverse ways that they can live their lives.

59. I don't know what Mitch tries to convey when he say that Even if an incremental increase in complexity may have no survival advantage eventually advantages are realized at some later stage. But I think the life form with increased complexity will not reach the later stage if it does not have even a tiny advantage from the start.

I do not propose that life form has to be more complex to increase survivability. Insects are less complex but more numerous than men. I raised the complexity issue just to point out that it does not need a creator to make complex life form.

60. Originally Posted by kkawohl
The Source of energy, god...that is reality...bub

61. Originally Posted by prasit
I don't know what Mitch tries to convey when he say that Even if an incremental increase in complexity may have no survival advantage eventually advantages are realized at some later stage. But I think the life form with increased complexity will not reach the later stage if it does not have even a tiny advantage from the start.
The whole point is that natural selection is not a creator of variation it is only a filter. Therefore as long a particular variation does not have a survival disadvantage it will not be selected against. That means every step in an evolutionary development DOES NOT have to be justified by a survival advantage.

In fact even a survival disadvantage does not guarantee that the this variation will not survive, only that it is less likely to survive. And that means that even a variation with a survival disadvantage can still be an intermediate step in an evolutionary development which ultimately "pays off".

Also it should be pointed out that survival advantage is not precisely the filter of natural selection. It is really reproductive advantage, to which survival advantage is only a contributor.

62. Ok, let's go back again to prasit's statement/question posit of a few days ago:

Quote:

I say that Creationist insists on the existence of Designer, evolutionist insists on relying only on a few key principles that keep lives getting more complex.
Mitchell and prasit then seemed to agree that complexity is not necessarily the goal of evolution, but rather that complexity, in some way, may increase survivability which is why life forms have become more complex over time.

But I am still trying to figure out what the "few key principles" are that evolutionists rely on.

What is more, I have posed a question in a couple of threads that no one has ever attempted to explain. It may well be off topic here, but . . .

Based on the big picture of evolution, it is believed that the earliest life forms on earth were one celled life forms although I am not sure if evolution suggests that the very first life forms were plant or animal or neither or both. If one or the other, I am not sure that evolution has explained the transformation from animal to plant or from plant to animal.

Whichever the case might be, at least, there is a general belief that at one point, all animal life forms were one celled. And then, perhaps, two cells of the same life form attached to each other and assumed different roles in something of a symbiotic relationship which eventually grew to an interdependency as each cell lost the ability to survive independently, resulting in two celled animals, etc., etc. until we arrived the complex multi-celled animals which exist today.

One celled life forms are numerous with many names, but for sake of my question, let us look at just two of them, the amoeba and paramecium.

Does evolution believe that both the amoeba and paramecium (or any two first one celled animals) may have evolved into separate and distinctive two-celled animals or did all two-celled animals come from just one single one-celled animal?

And then, if the amoeba and paramecium evolved into two separate two-celled animals, did those two celled animals become more complex and follow the same evolutionary path to modern animals, or might they have taken different paths?

By that I mean, evolution suggests that the multi-celled animals grew and evolved as water animals of various sorts but that it was fish (as opposed to clams) who eventually found ways to survive out of water as either amphibians or reptiles or both. That is, possibly the evolution change may not have gone from fish to amphibian to reptile but perhaps directly from fish to amphibian and fish to reptile.

Eventually, reptiles and/or amphibians or both evolved into birds and marsupials and mammals.

But now going back to the one-celled animals: Is it possible that the amoeba and paramecium, taking similar but different paths to complex animals may have both ended up as the base life form for different mammals, such that the reason we are unable to find a common ancestor of say cats and dogs is because their only common ancestor was pre-amoeba/paramecium? Or that some one-celled animals eventually evolved into mammals while others evolved into marsupials?

I find it difficult to believe that only one one-celled animal evolved into a two-celled animal which then evolved into all two-celled and that only one two-celled animal evolved into a single fish to which all fish are related and that only one fish evolved into one reptile which then evolved into the many reptiles but only one of those reptiles evolved into one bird from which all birds evolved.

It somewhat amuses me that evolutionists never advance the idea that the reason there are missing links is because there are no such links, that, for example dogs and cats are not related to the same reptile or even the same fish. What is even more interesting is that a creationist is mentioning this.

I do not actually have a strong anti evolution belief, but mostly just dislike those who advance the idea that evolution in some way necessitates the elimination of the participation of God in the process.

63. I believe you have posted similar argument in another thread. You believe there can be evolution within family while you don't believe a life form can evolve and diverge into different families.
So you do agree that evolution and creationism cannot be both correct. But which one is correct you may like to create another thread to debate on, though it is an old war waged between creationist and evolutionist.
I am not sure if evolution suggests that the very first life forms were plant or animal or neither or both.
If it is the first/single life form then classification is pointless, like trying to say a lump of metal is a fork or a spoon.

64. Well the OP mentions creationism and evolution so I think comparisons and contrasts are appropriate on this thread.

I was not actually expressing any personal preferences but actually I was giving evolutionists an out they do not seem to have come up with on their own. That "out" would be that the reason there is no common mammal link between cats and dogs is because the common link is some fish or some two-celled animal. I'm not saying I would agree with that, just saying I wonder why no evolutionist has come up with that idea. Are we creationist better at arguing the evolutionist side of the debate than are the evolutionists?

Surely, from and evolutionary standpoint, it was not just one fish that came out of the water and evolved into all subsequent out-of-water animals. Surely, it was not just one reptile that evolved into a mammal which is the mother of all mammals. My conjecture would easily explain away some of the "missing links" better than saying the link animals apparently did not ever get fossilized. Evolution refuses to consider that the reason there are missing links is because there are no such links. Sometimes the reason you can't find something is because it does not exist.

As to the question of which came first plants or animals, I got to thinking and now think evolution actually believes plant life preceded animal life. How it may have transformed to animal life is probably a difficult and important question that evolutionists would prefer to ignore.

prasit sort of misrepresents my view. I do not see natural selection as having been responsible for the migration from say fish to reptile, but certainly accept that God directed processes could have wrought such a movement.

Meanwhile, prasit continues to avoid listing the "few key principles" evolutionists rely on. It has always seem to me that a couple of the key principles has been to ignore the tough questions and pooh-pooh legitimate arguments.

65. Evolution refuses to consider that the reason there are missing links is because there are no such links. Sometimes the reason you can't find something is because it does not exist.
Fossils are not created for the convenience of men to verify their theory. It is surely reasonable that not all stages of fossils are found. Million of years are a very long..long time.
Surely, it was not just one reptile that evolved into a mammal which is the mother of all mammals.
No, it is not a reptile that evolved. It is a reptamamal, which diverge into reptile and mammal. Same as plant and animal, it started with planimal.

Have you ever seen a morphing effect? A man turns into a wolf by gradually change shape, thru the use of computer graphics. Now try imagining a single cell morphing into a man.... in 3.5 billion-year span. And also a single cell morphing into an oak tree in the same span. Do you notice the differences in the two morphed cell after the first ten, or hundred thousand years? Do you notice the change in the shape of each morphed cell from one century to next?

This is just a metaphor. To get to what actually happened you can read some books about evolution. I recommend The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins.

66. Originally Posted by daytonturner
I do not actually have a strong anti evolution belief, but mostly just dislike those who advance the idea that evolution in some way necessitates the elimination of the participation of God in the process.
God is whatever one wants it/him to be. "God" has been given a bad reputation over time...I submit that we rename him The Source...or The Cause or Whatever.

67. Originally Posted by kkawohl
God is whatever one wants it/him to be. "God" has been given a bad reputation over time...I submit that we rename him The Source...or The Cause or Whatever.
Again, can you demonstrate this god, source, cause, whatever? No one else ever has, you'd be the first.

If not, why not just forget the whole thing? Why create some pointless, invisible and undetectable entity that has no value whatsoever?

68. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl
God is whatever one wants it/him to be. "God" has been given a bad reputation over time...I submit that we rename him The Source...or The Cause or Whatever.
Again, can you demonstrate this god, source, cause, whatever? No one else ever has, you'd be the first.

If not, why not just forget the whole thing? Why create some pointless, invisible and undetectable entity that has no value whatsoever?
God has great value...he exists in the hearts and minds of many people; his inspiration guides their lives and gives them hope for an afterlife...these people are happy...would you, dear scrooge deprive hem of their happiness?

69. God is Santa Claus!
No need to proof his existence. He is in the hearts and minds of many people (some others have Visanu is their hearts, but that's another story) His inspiration guides their lives and gives them hope. So as long as there is a belief in something, ergo, it must exist!

70. Originally Posted by prasit
God is Santa Claus!
No need to proof his existence. He is in the hearts and minds of many people (some others have Visanu is their hearts, but that's another story) His inspiration guides their lives and gives them hope. So as long as there is a belief in something, ergo, it must exist!
God "exists" only for those who believe in him/them...be it Santa Claus, Satan or the Easter Bunny.

71. That's remind me of a volume of fantasy novel in DiscWorld series by Terry Pratchett. A powerful god had gradually lost his power because not many people believed in him and when there was only one man who still believed, the god was reduced to be a small turtle.

72. Originally Posted by prasit
That's remind me of a volume of fantasy novel in DiscWorld series by Terry Pratchett. A powerful god had gradually lost his power because not many people believed in him and when there was only one man who still believed, the god was reduced to be a small turtle.
God is spirit...and only as powerful on earth as man makes him.

73. Originally Posted by kkawohl

God has great value...he exists in the hearts and minds of many people; his inspiration guides their lives and gives them hope for an afterlife...these people are happy...would you, dear scrooge deprive hem of their happiness?
Religion provides false happiness, since it is a facade, a fraud, a scheme to fool one into believing in such ridiculous promises as an afterlife. So, the question is, why would you want to continue to lie to people just to provide them a false sense of happiness?

74. (Q) said:

Religion provides false happiness
After reading the many posts of (Q) and pavlos, it appears that atheism provides a real and present, if not dangerous, anger and disdain toward those who are religious. Perhaps this is caused by their lack of happiness, whether real or false. Or perhaps it is just the natural result of the insidious poison which is spread by the likes of Richard Dawkins.

75. Originally Posted by daytonturner
(Q) said:

Religion provides false happiness
After reading the many posts of (Q) and pavlos, it appears that atheism provides a real and present, if not dangerous, anger and disdain toward those who are religious. Perhaps this is caused by their lack of happiness, whether real or false. Or perhaps it is just the natural result of the insidious poison which is spread by the likes of Richard Dawkins.
No dayton, I do not think so. I think they have very real and substantial causes for resentment against those who have used a religious ideology for manipulation and abuse. Please remember who Jesus was angry at when he was on the earth. It was not towards the atheists that Jesus was angry. Perhaps Paul showed some of that because Paul encountered more, but still I wonder if Jesus would have shown any ire at them at all. It seems more likely from the gospel accounts that Jesus would have ignored them, saying that his message and mission was only for those who believed in God.

76. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl

God has great value...he exists in the hearts and minds of many people; his inspiration guides their lives and gives them hope for an afterlife...these people are happy...would you, dear scrooge deprive hem of their happiness?
Religion provides false happiness, since it is a facade, a fraud, a scheme to fool one into believing in such ridiculous promises as an afterlife. So, the question is, why would you want to continue to lie to people just to provide them a false sense of happiness?
You protest too much. Are you unhappy because others have found peace and happiness?

77. mitchell said:

I do not think so. I think they have very real and substantial causes for resentment against those who have used a religious ideology for manipulation and abuse.
So, do you honestly think religious factions have used their religious ideology to negatively manipulate and abuse others to a greater extent than anti-religious ideologies such as Nazism, Communism and Maoism have manipulated and abused others in a negative way? I firmly believe that history shows the negative results of religious influences are de minimus when compared to the negative results of non-religious influences.

I think it more accurate that anti-religious zeal has been a greater motivator of negative impacts on society. One is left to consider whether the current motivation of radical Islam is more pro-Islam or more pro-anti everything else.

Emotionally speaking, it is far easier to rouse people against something than it is to get them to support something. Look at all the negative political advertising we get in these election years. The candidates are far more focused on getting us to vote against the other guy than in getting us to vote for them.

This is why I react to the invidious insidiousness of the religious hatred spewed out by some of the posters here. Was their perspective of history anywhere near accurate, they would understand the foolishness they subscribe to attempt to promote. But their hatred of religion (mostly Christianity) completely distorts their perspective.

Mitchell also said:

It was not towards the atheists that Jesus was angry. Perhaps Paul showed some of that because Paul encountered more, but still I wonder if Jesus would have shown any ire at them at all. It seems more likely from the gospel accounts that Jesus would have ignored them, saying that his message and mission was only for those who believed in God.
Uhhhh. I don't know that I can go along with this. I agree that Jesus was very upset at the established Jewish religious leaders of that time. However, the "atheists" of his day were what they called gentiles and pagans, people who believed in a God other than Yahweh. I'm not sure there were "atheists" by our definition. It is sometimes difficult to make accurate societal comparisons when the societies are separated by 2000 years.

I don't think Jesus faced much opposition from non-Jews because He was hardly ever in contact with non-Jews. I don't think his message was only for those who believed in God, but rather for those who wanted to know God in a more personal way. I think Jesus would have shown the same compassion for non-Jews as He did for Jews and would have spoken out against their heresies just as He did against Jewish heresies.

I think the danger of ignoring this threat to social harmony is far worse than attempting to confront it and expose it.

78. Originally Posted by daytonturner
So, do you honestly think religious factions have used their religious ideology to negatively manipulate and abuse others to a greater extent than anti-religious ideologies such as Nazism, Communism and Maoism have manipulated and abused others in a negative way? I firmly believe that history shows the negative results of religious influences are de minimus when compared to the negative results of non-religious influences.
Not at all. I was going to add that Q and pavlos may be just as manipulative and abusive with their own ideology, but this does not change the fact that they have good reasons for their resentment. So the problem lies in the reactionary nature of their attitudes, but we know that those who are abused tend to abuse others, do we not?

You should know better than to think that I would ever swallow their ridiculous ideology that religion is the origin of evil in the world, we both know that the real origin is in habitual human behaviors that will use whatever is at hand as an excuse for what they do.

Originally Posted by daytonturner
Emotionally speaking, it is far easier to rouse people against something than it is to get them to support something. Look at all the negative political advertising we get in these election years. The candidates are far more focused on getting us to vote against the other guy than in getting us to vote for them.
No kidding. The same kind of reaction against society is a very strong element of religious motivation, especially in Christianity which has such a large tendency to calcify and become dead and institutional that there is a very strong need for each new generation to rediscover the the revolutionary and life giving message of the gospel.

Originally Posted by daytonturner
This is why I react to the invidious insidiousness of the religious hatred spewed out by some of the posters here. Was their perspective of history anywhere near accurate, they would understand the foolishness they subscribe to attempt to promote. But their hatred of religion (mostly Christianity) completely distorts their perspective.
Well "reacting against" certainly has its place and that was the point I was making in favor of Q and pavlos. However it also a good thing to stop and recognize the endless cycle that such reactionary behavior is going to produce.

Originally Posted by daytonturner
Uhhhh. I don't know that I can go along with this. I agree that Jesus was very upset at the established Jewish religious leaders of that time. However, the "atheists" of his day were what they called gentiles and pagans, people who believed in a God other than Yahweh. I'm not sure there were "atheists" by our definition. It is sometimes difficult to make accurate societal comparisons when the societies are separated by 2000 years.
That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't those who did not believe in the God of the Old Testament that Jesus was railing at, and the point is that it is the believers who do the most damage to the kingdom of God by making it a thing of hatred and slavery rather than love and liberation.

Originally Posted by daytonturner
I think the danger of ignoring this threat to social harmony is far worse than attempting to confront it and expose it.
Yes but there is no confrontation with and exposition of the problem that points at symptoms and whitewashes the causes, that is more in the nature of a cover up. The only athentic confrontation is in confronting how we ourselves contribute to the problem and the only real exposition is one that exposes the whole truth.

Anyway, what was Jesus' recommendation for dealing with your enemies?

The place to begin, is understanding what motivates people. You don't have to worry about any danger of excusing them because you shouldn't be excusing anyone, least of all yourself. There is no sin that is OK, get my drift?

79. After reading the many posts of (Q) and pavlos, it appears that atheism provides a real and present, if not dangerous, anger and disdain toward those who are religious.
1. Q and Pavlos are Atheists. Atheists are not necessarily Q and Pavlos.
2. Please debate on contents, not on characters.

Meanwhile, prasit continues to avoid listing the "few key principles" evolutionists rely on. It has always seem to me that a couple of the key principles has been to ignore the tough questions and pooh-pooh legitimate arguments.
I don't remember exactly, but they are something like 1. Transfer of characteristics by inheritance 2. Variation by mutation 3. Survival of the fittest.
I have no intention to avoid. Just feel that they seem to be common knowledge.

80. Originally Posted by daytonturner

After reading the many posts of (Q) and pavlos, it appears that atheism provides a real and present, if not dangerous, anger and disdain toward those who are religious. Perhaps this is caused by their lack of happiness, whether real or false. Or perhaps it is just the natural result of the insidious poison which is spread by the likes of Richard Dawkins.
Let's make something perfectly crystal clear, Dayton, the disdain I have is toward religions, the ideologies, not people.

And since the concept of eternal damnation sits ever present in your deluded mind, and is something to laugh at for me, I most certainly am happier than you, everything else equal.

And finally, if you had actually read any of Dawkins books or at the very least watched those videos I provided for you, perhaps you'd have an argument. But, since it's clear you haven't read his books and are merely squawking like some mindless parrot, one can sit back and have a hearty laugh at your fabrications and your expense.

81. Originally Posted by kkawohl

You protest too much. Are you unhappy because others have found peace and happiness?
Some, like yourself, would rather see a world embraced with delusion and fantasy, where education and knowledge are things to be avoided at all costs. If this makes people happy, then mankind is most certainly on a path of self-destruction. I'm not as willing a participant as you are for moving towards that end.

82. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl

You protest too much. Are you unhappy because others have found peace and happiness?
...If this makes people happy, then mankind is most certainly on a path of self-destruction. I'm not as willing a participant as you are for moving towards that end.
Sigh ...but you'll get there anyway. unless you aim to live forever...flash...adopt spirituality and you can accomplish that.

83. Originally Posted by kkawohl
live forever...flash...adopt spirituality and you can accomplish that.
Sorry, but adopting superstitions and fantasies as reality is irresponsible, puerile and irrational. I see little difference from what you offer to that of being lobotomized.

84. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl
live forever...flash...adopt spirituality and you can accomplish that.
Sorry, but adopting superstitions and fantasies as reality is irresponsible, puerile and irrational. I see little difference from what you offer to that of being lobotomized.
:-D Peace, love, happiness = spirituality...and visa versa....fantasies and superstitions not required.

85. Earlier you also said that spirit is conscience, consciousness etc. If the word can mean anything then it is no use for discussion.

86. prasit said: (re: key principles of evolution)

I don't remember exactly, but they are something like 1. Transfer of characteristics by inheritance 2. Variation by mutation 3. Survival of the fittest.
Well, one reason you didn't remember exactly was because there is not a well developed outline of principles of evolution, mainly because there are not all that many principles involved. I think your outline is close to complete, although some might label them differently.

Your principle No. 1 might be more simply listed as reproduction and your principle no. 3 might be listed as adaptation. With these I would have no particular disagreement but only conclude they have been observed only at the species and variations levels of taxonomy. And they certainly have no capacity to remove God from the process.

Mutation might be a little more difficult because we have not observed any beneficial natural mutations. Just the opposite, all observed mutations have been detrimental to the survival of the mutated reproduction. I think specifically of numerous experiments using the rapidly reproducing fruit fly in which, having observed more than a million generations of fruit flies, no observed beneficial changes have naturally occurred. And though we have induced suspected causes of "natural" mutations, neither have we observed mutations from this process which have been shown to be beneficial.

We have been successful at genetically engineering beneficial changes by splicing in new and or different genes. This does not prove nature has ever conducted a similar operation, and only shows that it can be done by someone who knows what they are doing.

87. With these I would have no particular disagreement but only conclude they have been observed only at the species and variations levels of taxonomy

I think specifically of numerous experiments using the rapidly reproducing fruit fly in which, having observed more than a million generations of fruit flies, no observed beneficial changes have naturally occurred.
This argument makes a false assumption that the scientists studying fruit flies, be they entomologists or geneticists, made failed attempts to develop a new "kind" of insect from their test subjects. Creating a new "kind" of insect was never the objective for any fruit fly experiment ever done.
Researchers learned a lot about genetics in fruit fly experiments. The purpose of many fruit fly experiments was not to transform them into new and different organism, but to manipulate their genes in order to discover what the functions of these genes are.

The life cycle of fruit fly from egg to adult is 10 days. A million generations should take 10 million days, roughly 30,000 years. This is the longest experiment I have ever heard of.

88. Originally Posted by kkawohl

:-D Peace, love, happiness = spirituality...and visa versa....fantasies and superstitions not required.
Spirituality = fantasies and superstitions.

Peace, love, happiness = nature.

89. prasit said:

The life cycle of fruit fly from egg to adult is 10 days. A million generations should take 10 million days, roughly 30,000 years. This is the longest experiment I have ever heard of.
You do not know how to count generations in this sense. They are not talking about one a linear progression, but a geometric progression. If you have one pair which breeds and produces 10 flies and each of those pairs up with different mates with each producing 10 new flies, you do not have just two generations, but multiple generations and permeations. Millions of generations may be a conservative estimate, considering fruit flies have been one of the major objects of genetic studies for more than a century.

Secondarily, consider that you have two studies going on in two separate places with two separate lines of fruit flies. Even counting in a linear fashion, when each study reaches 10 generations, you would have 20 generations, not 10 generations.

Not even considering the idea that fruit fly experiments have not produced a new type of fly, fruit fly experiments have not even produced a better fruit fly. Even having produced variations that were able to survive when isolated is a special environment, the variants either died or were assimilated back into "normal" population when removed from their special environment or when "normal" flies were introduced into the special environment.

Such experiments have confirmed to two of the principles of evolution -- changes through reproduction and adaptation to different environments. However, they have not confirmed the principle of beneficial changes through mutation.

A theory such as evolution is used to predict not only what has happened but, more important, what will happen in certain conditions. The prediction of beneficial mutations is sorely lacking observed validations.

One big difference between creationists and evolutionists is that creationists recognize the validated aspects of evolution while also recognizing those things which have not been validated. Evolutionists tend to discount these unvalidated areas as meaningless and scorn those who think they have significance.

90. They are not talking about one a linear progression, but a geometric progression. If you have one pair which breeds and produces 10 flies and each of those pairs up with different mates with each producing 10 new flies, you do not have just two generations, but multiple generations and permeations.
Your definition of generation is not as those used in general. So you cannot refer to it on evolution process.

By your definition human must have gone thru billion generations in just a hundred years.

91. Originally Posted by prasit
Your definition of generation is not as those used in general. So you cannot refer to it on evolution process.

By your definition human must have gone thru billion generations in just a hundred years.
Daytons definition and argument seems to suggest that he is thinking that there is a probability that that a new species will just suddenly appear and since in the million "generations" according to his definition this has not occured then that is evidence that no such thing happens. This is of course ridiculous. All that has to appear in "generations" of that sort is significant genetic variation and that has certainly been seen to an enormous degree, but speciation is the result of cumulative changes over a large number of generations of the linear type. This is the case even in the punctuated equillibrium senario.

Another error which I think is implicit in Dayton's thinking is the suggestion that generations of such short lived species are comparable to that of more complex organisms and that we should expect to see the same range of evolutionary development in these simpler organisms given that they go through the same number of genergations. But that this must be wrong is clearly shown but the evolutionary timeline where we see that more complex organisms actually evolve faster and thus in far fewer generations than the simpler organisms. The reasons for this are numerous. One reason is that more complex organisms have better techniques for introducing controlled variations into the genome with a higher liklihood that these variations will be productive. Another reason is that it is easier for subtle changes in the genome of a complex organism to produce visible changes in form and function, or to put it another way, greater complexity also implies greater diversity.

For example, looking at life at the celular level we see that most of the diversity of the species that we see and make so much of are just eukaryotes and quite similar. The variations of the forms of eukaryotes are not found in differences between species but between the different members of the interdependent community that we call multi-celular organisms. From that perspective we see that eukaryotes have change little over the last billion years.

92. Mitchell said:

Daytons definition and argument seems to suggest that he is thinking that there is a probability that that a new species will just suddenly appear and since in the million "generations" according to his definition this has not occured then that is evidence that no such thing happens.
Not what I am thinking. What you are suggesting here would be what I would consider the result of a radical mutation or perhaps some drastic change in environment. A new species that developed through a long process of generations would involve a population from the original species that included genetic change(s) which prohibit the new and the old species from reproducing fertile offspring which are then capable of reproducing themselves.

It is not likely that such a process would take place in localized populations, but more likely in separated populations where different characteristics provide a better survival rate. Or, possibly, in localized populations where a specific characteristic provides access to a different environmental niche. (For example, birds with a recessive gene larger beak may able to eat a larger seed, and over many generations these birds begin to breed amongst themselves creating birds who no longer carry the dominant small beak gene. It may come about that over many generations they are no longer able to breed with the smaller beaked birds to produce viable, fertile offspring.)

Darwinism relied almost exclusively on this process of evolution -- small changes over long periods of time. However, this process seems to come to logger heads with the time line of life such that our current estimates of the how long life has been on Earth, does not provide enough time for these small changes over long periods of time to account for the many life forms which we know have existed, let alone the transitional life forms which would have had to exist, but for which we find no physical evidence.

The time line is further complicated by the fact that fossil records show periods of radical and massive extinctions and periods of rapid life form proliferation in something of a two-steps-forward-one-step-back history. The fossil records indicate that it has not been a long, smooth transition process from one celled life forms to today's complex life forms.

Another error which I think is implicit in Dayton's thinking is the suggestion that generations of such short lived species are comparable to that of more complex organisms and that we should expect to see the same range of evolutionary development in these simpler organisms given that they go through the same number of genergations. But that this must be wrong is clearly shown but the evolutionary timeline where we see that more complex organisms actually evolve faster and thus in far fewer generations than the simpler organisms. The reasons for this are numerous. One reason is that more complex organisms have better techniques for introducing controlled variations into the genome with a higher liklihood that these variations will be productive. Another reason is that it is easier for subtle changes in the genome of a complex organism to produce visible changes in form and function, or to put it another way, greater complexity also implies greater diversity.
Well, there are a few problems with this paragraph.

Where to start? Genetic alterations must take place in in the reproduction process. When an animal is born or when a plant spouts, it will always remain what was born or sprouted. This is why the actual answer to "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" must always conclude that the egg came first. Thus, with more fertilization opportunities, rapidly reproducing animals (plants, too, I suppose) provide greater opportunities for genetic alterations.

The more complex animals, it would seem, with usually more numerous chromosomes and genes, provide more things that can be changed. However, the fewer feature in the animal, the more significant is one seemingly minor changes.

So there is something of a trade off there.

The next thing is, I don't think real life actually supports the idea that "more complex organisms actually evolve faster and thus in far fewer generations."

According to 4to40.com
"Estimates of the number of different species of insect range from well over a million to nearly three million. Whatever the true number, there are at least three times as many different kinds of insects in the world as there are every other species of animal put together."
In looking for stats on this, I found one site estimated 4,000,000 species of insects, but somewhat discount that as a likely overestimate. Anyway, in contrast, the estimated number of mammal species is somewhere estimated at somewhere around 4,250.

I do not know if those counts include extinct species or just currently surviving species. Whatever, the math works out to somewhere around 700 times as many insects as mammals.

Mammals, it is estimated, appeared on earth some 265 million years ago. Assuming the same rate of evolution (although Mitchell claims mammals would evolve faster), it would take 185 billion years for insects to have evolved 700 times as many species as mammals. But -- if insects evolve slower than mammals, it would have taken even longer. Now compare that to the age of the Universe estimated at 14-15 billion years and the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years with life appearing approximate 3 billion years ago. It does not add up.

Mitchell concluded:

For example, looking at life at the celular level we see that most of the diversity of the species that we see and make so much of are just eukaryotes and quite similar. The variations of the forms of eukaryotes are not found in differences between species but between the different members of the interdependent community that we call multi-celular organisms. From that perspective we see that eukaryotes have change little over the last billion years.
I find this paragraph somewhat pointless. Eukaryotes is merely a name describing the basic component structure of living cells. All cells have virtually the same basic structure and components. This is not surprising. All elements are similar in that they are made up of different atoms combining in a similar way to produce a different compounds. (Water has not changed one iota since it first formed.) I just don't understand what you are saying for sure. Are you pointing out that while all eukaryotes have similar structure and components, the differences are in the makeup of those components? Or are you saying that the differences among eukaryotes is found in how they relate to each other in multi-celled living things? In either case, I cannot figure out how this would accrue to or detract from the cases for or against evolution.

93. Lets see...

Insects have been around for about 400 million years and mammals have been around for 70 million years. There are about 100 times as many insect species as mammilian species. However since half the insect species are varieties of beetles, I think it would make more sense to look at the larger picture of morphological difference by comparing the 79 taxonomic groups of mammals to the 381 taxonomic groups of insects, which would give insects 4.8 times as many taxonomic groups in 5.7 times as many years. Which just goes to show how differently one can look at the data.

However, imagining that you can use numbers like this to calculate the number of species that should result in these periods is pretty absurd because there are so many different factors involved, not only in the process of speciation but in the survival of new species. But I think the most significant factor in comparing these two is the number of evolutionary niches available. Organisms at the top of the food chain require an enormously greater biomass to support and so naturally their numbers must be fewer and this means that competition for the naturally limited biomass would be greater and thus the extinction of potentially new species would be more frequent for the larger animals.

Another factor that differentiates the two groups is a fundamental difference in strategy for survival. The primary insect strategy is large numbers of offspring, which is quite necessary since they are a big part of the food source for other organisms. In other words, insects rely on a remnant of a very large number of offspring escaping predation. This contributes enormously to force of selection on their genome, according to the logic of punctuated equillibrium, and means that we would expect to see greater diversity and speciation among them in the natural environment than what might be expected from other considerations alone.

94. poor TV reception is partly due to the big bang still resonating through the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_(video)

95. Well, Mitchell, it is as Disraeli said about lies, damned lies and statistics."

However, if the statistics are wrong, they become worse than damned lies. I think the actual proportion of insect species to mammal species is 700 to 1, which brings into question your comparison of the numbers of taxonomic groups. You can, of course, meander a little further up the taxonomy chart and and the proportion gets even smaller. The question would be at which point do you actually get a more significant and meaningful comparison?

Meanwhile, I agree that trying to speculate as to a time factor for the emergence of new species depends on more than mathematical formulas. However, just about everything involved with evolution is a matter of speculation and guesses.

And then, when someone quotes Dawkins that "evolution is a fact," you have no idea which of the speculations and guesses they are buying in to. Actually, evolution is more than "a" fact. It is a limited number of facts from which numerous conclusions have been drawn.

Mitchell said:
Another factor that differentiates the two groups is a fundamental difference in strategy for survival. The primary insect strategy is large numbers of offspring, which is quite necessary since they are a big part of the food source for other organisms. In other words, insects rely on a remnant of a very large number of offspring escaping predation. This contributes enormously to force of selection on their genome, according to the logic of punctuated equillibrium, and means that we would expect to see greater diversity and speciation among them in the natural environment than what might be expected from other considerations alone.
Having previously stated:

Another error which I think is implicit in Dayton's thinking is the suggestion that generations of such short lived species are comparable to that of more complex organisms and that we should expect to see the same range of evolutionary development in these simpler organisms given that they go through the same number of genergations. But that this must be wrong is clearly shown but the evolutionary timeline where we see that more complex organisms actually evolve faster and thus in far fewer generations than the simpler organisms. The reasons for this are numerous. One reason is that more complex organisms have better techniques for introducing controlled variations into the genome with a higher liklihood that these variations will be productive. Another reason is that it is easier for subtle changes in the genome of a complex organism to produce visible changes in form and function, or to put it another way, greater complexity also implies greater diversity.
I sort of think the two statements (emphasis on my highlighted segments) are diametrically opposed to each other. In the one, you extol rapidity of diversity among rapidly producing, large reproduction animals while in the other you are extolling the rapidity of diversity of the much more slowly reproducing, fewer offspring complex animals. If nothing else, it does show that I am reading what you are writing!!!!

96. Originally Posted by daytonturner

just about everything involved with evolution is a matter of speculation and guesses.
speculation and guesses based on objective evidence, and laws of physics.
of course it can be wrong, but not as wrong as religion, which base itself purely on speculation ALONE.

you need to look at all the strains of science that supports evolution.
nuclear physics is one.
it leads onto radiological dating, and proves there was life on earth more than 6000 years ago.
it doesn't matter if scientists are off by a 5-10 million years here and there on the older samples, its accurate enough when you're talking about 300 million years.
most of what scientists knows about geology is based on evolution, including tectonic plate movement.
fossils are used as guides for when continents separated so whenever a fossil dated from a later period is found, history gets rewritten.

(the next is not entirely accurate, just a sample)

lets say about 135 million years ago a dinosaur was living on the area that was africa and south america combined.
as long as the continents aren't divided, the species is free to move back and forth along the continents, and will remain pretty much 1 species.
so if you find a fossil of that dinosaur both in africa and america dated around 130-140 million years ago, you know that africa and america wasn't divided around 135 mln years ago.
if you can't find fossils that are similar after 135 million years ago, you can draw and assumption that africa and south america started moving away from eachother at that point. it won't be accurate, but it'll be all we can draw from the evidence. an assumption in other words.
if palaeontologists were to find similar looking dinosaur fossils in both south america and south africa dated about 80 mln years ago, history books will get rewritten.

97. I do not find much in deja's post with which I would fundamentally disagree.

I'm not sure deja quite understands the difference between a belief base on experience and a speculative conclusion based on facts. That would perhaps describe the difference between science and religion better than saying they are both speculation.

When you have a body of data focused on a topic (evolution, global warming, economics, for example) and people of reasonably similar intelligence and expertise can use that data to draw different and opposing conclusions, you have the framework of speculation.

I am not a young Earth advocate so your discussion on the age of Earth is a sermon to the choir. Life forms do provide some evidence of tectonic plate shift, but the greater evidence is found in geological similarities.

My main objection is your use of the idea that "history gets rewritten." If you add new data to your equation, they may clarify and support your original conclusions or they may do just the opposite. "Rewriting history" carries with it the connotation that what is accurate in history is being replaced with that which is inaccurate. I would hope science does not do that.

98. First there was God and then the rest. The first instance of evolution.

Our next evolution is to my God, a more cosmic counsciecness type of God.
The first God that began as a man.

Are these true

Man+woman=son
God+woman=abomination
Angel+woman=flood

Regards
DL

99. Originally Posted by Greatest I am
First there was God and then the rest. The first instance of evolution.

Our next evolution is to my God, a more cosmic counsciecness type of God.
The first God that began as a man.

Regards
DL
GOD PROCLAIMS

I am God, the God from the beginning of God.
I did not come from nowhere.
I play no magic tricks on man.
I did not create the earth by casting spells.
I had a humble beginning the same as man;
My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.
My wisdom grows as more spirits unite
After the cessation of life after much physical strife.
Throughout time I have been named God,
Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.
I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety
To be the one who claims to please me the most.
I am easy to please. I require very little.
I only want you to do what is best for mankind.
I will bless you and wish you well.
I will inspire your mind and you will
Accomplish the unfathomable.
I require no worship. I need nothing from man.
I am self sufficient. I am spirit.

Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can.
Live your life for the betterment of man.
Your spirit will soon be with me and then
Together we will see and traverse the universe.
There are many wonders to behold,
You will partake in all the wisdom
That has been gathered from the beginning of time.
The stars will be your playground.
You can play with the animals,
Listen to the greatest opera,
Stage or musical performances,
Or you can just relax next to a bubbling brook
And enjoy the scenery.
You feel no pain, despair,
Heartache, or negative emotions.
You are now One with me.
You are with God my child.

100. Originally Posted by kkawohl

GOD PROCLAIMS
Funny how god could have written his proclamation when you've claimed he has no powers whatsoever in the physical universe. That of course doesn't preclude the fact you know of such gods, like the ones that have no powers whatsoever in the physical universe, yet somehow you know of them. Curious contradictions, Kurt.

101. Originally Posted by (Q)
Originally Posted by kkawohl

GOD PROCLAIMS
Funny how god could have written his proclamation
He didn't...it's a parable.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement