The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

Getting back to where things should be taught.

In my experience evolutionists have a greater religious fervor than some Christians I know. What is painful is the philosophy that develops from the belief that we are nothing but an accident with no purpose in life.

Evolution, and everything I have ever read, does not stand up scientifically, in fact science disproves evolution. Should we not be teaching in our science classes that evolution is just that 'a theory', but it is being taught as being an indisputable fact. That is where my whole problem lies, in that it is being taught as a proven fact when it is not. I agree with the philosophy of Science idea. We have a fellow in Canada named Dr. David Suzuki who has categorically stated that there is no God, Dr. Suzuki obviously brings his philosophy into the realm of science and then can his science be objective can mine be objective?

There are many modern scientists who have turned their backs on evolution and that is what I understand to be the beginnings of ID; scientists trying to reconcile what they were always taught, finding it's untrue and moving to find that truth but not quite there yet.

Asiaprod, no problem, teach all views of creation from all cultures. Also I joined late and haven't read all the posts. But my question did allow everyone to encapsulate their views in a short span. I do appreciate the patience.:)

Robindch, we would love to have you. Last year we had a Mormon in to talk about his beliefs, last month we went to a Catholic Mass and had the priest talk to us. (Us and we meaning our church's youth group). Mind you there were those in our congregation who raised a few eyebrows. To excelsiors poine, if you have a mature faith it poses no threat.

Atheist, you seem bothered by the fact that teaching our kids creationism would be indoctrinating them with Christianity? On the flip side it could be argued that teaching evolution is indoctrinating impressionable young minds that there is no god of any sort. Is that right?:eek:

Excelsior

pH wrote:

I'm afraid it does have a lot of explantory power about feelings of love, loyalty and devotion you feel for your spouse.

I don't know why you are afraid of that. Sadly however, loyalty and devotion are not feelings. They are habitual sacrificial actions. I may be able to explain generally what is going on in a human when they are in love but I cannot say anything scientific about my love for my wife. All I can do is apply the general physiological states to my body and acknowledge they play some role in the convenantal relationship I have with her.

pH wrote:

There was never a first human, and to say you accept evolution, and also say that there was (a 1st human) is a huge contradiction. Every generation is slightly different from their parents, there was never a "first human" any more different from his/her parents as you are from yours.

There is a level upon which you are entirely right. I love how Stephen Jay Gould argues this by asking whether you became a human at birth, at conception, at your father's birth or your mother's birth or their conception and so on. Reality is analogue and we can't pull a moment in time out and say "Now humans began here! --->."

However, although we won't ever be able to distinguish a moment when humanity is born, there is a time when that which came before was different to that crucial degree from that which is. It is a profoundly important acknowledgment that there must be a distinction between humanity and that from which humanity arose for humanity to exist at all. The inability of us to fingerprint that point in no way negates its existence.

pH wrote:

But you now seem say that to are in fact a Creationist (Humans made by God distinct from other animals), whereas evolution says this did not happen. It now seems you too admit that evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

Evolution doesn't say anything about souls because that is outside the jurisdiction of science. As a skeptic you live by Hume and you die by Hume. Induction has boundaries and the existence of Yahweh and souls fall outside them. It is by faith that one believes in them, a very different faith than one places in the empirical method.

Creationist is a term that means something quite different, sadly, in our society than it should. I do not believe that the world is 6000 years old and came out fully formed after 6 days in God's workshop. I believe that science is increasingly effective at answering the question we set it: How? I also am convinced by a faith informed by reason that Jesus is the answer to the question Why.

Excelsior

BrianCalgary wrote:

Getting back to where things should be taught.

Will this thread ever end?

BC wrote:

In my experience evolutionists have a greater religious fervor than some Christians I know. What is painful is the philosophy that develops from the belief that we are nothing but an accident with no purpose in life.

I have yet to meet these kinds of people but I can imagine them existing. I have met people subjected to horrid and squalid life conditions because of philosophies that originally found their home in the Gospels. I see where you are coming from Brian but I think it needs to be balanced.

BC wrote:

Evolution, and everything I have ever read, does not stand up scientifically, in fact science disproves evolution. Should we not be teaching in our science classes that evolution is just that 'a theory', but it is being taught as being an indisputable fact. That is where my whole problem lies, in that it is being taught as a proven fact when it is not.

All scientific fact is theory. A fact is a socially accepted standard after which the cost of maintaining skepticism over a theory is more expensive than accepting its tenets. There is only scientific theory to encourage trust that the sun will rise tomorrow. To argue that evolution is "merely a theory" is to argue an irrelevancy. The question is how good a theory is it? On its own it is very strong, although many holes can be apparently poked in it by the likes of Ken Ham. Taken as part of the broad picture of modern science across many disciplines it is the firmest level of theory we have, that is, fact.

And it should keep changing and refining because that is what the empirical method is all about- further approximating an accurate answer.

BC wrote:

We have a fellow in Canada named Dr. David Suzuki who has categorically stated that there is no God, Dr. Suzuki obviously brings his philosophy into the realm of science and then can his science be objective can mine be objective?

No science can be objective. It is one of the major reasons why the Enlightenment project that many on this board advocate has floundered. Dr. Suzuki may be a great scientist but he is a bad philosopher. However, science class should not be teaching the philosophical implications that people draw from science. It should just teach science. Dr. Suzuki should leave his conclusions for the debating room. In science class, we want just the facts, ma'am.

bc wrote:

There are many modern scientists who have turned their backs on evolution and that is what I understand to be the beginnings of ID; scientists trying to reconcile what they were always taught, finding it's untrue and moving to find that truth but not quite there yet.

ID is not a Christian movement. It is shared by some Muslims, Raelians and I think Scientologists. It does not conclude with the creation of existence by Yahweh but by a Deist god on a lunchbreak. All this makes its starting point amongst Creation Scientists all the more depressing. They changed tactics with ID to get back into classrooms after the defeat of 1987 and through the creation of bodies like the Discovery Institute they hoped to put God where he has never been before, in textbooks. They have failed. Even if they had won this week, they would have failed, because ID in no way certainly leads back to the God of Christianity.

So what I am saying is that the likes of Philip Johnson have orchestrated this movement for flawed religious reasoning. There are no peer-reviewed articles by an ID-er all these years on. There are no prominent scientists moving camp. There is no conspiracy. There is just bad science, philosophy and theology coming together in a "Wedge".

BC wrote:

On the flip side it could be argued that teaching evolution is indoctrinating impressionable young minds that there is no god of any sort. Is that right?

It really isn't Brian. Gravity isn't taught as the object of a personal God's desire and people don't come away thinking "If things fall through the exertion of gravitational force, then there can't be a god". Outside of theonion.com, no one has advocated an Intelligent Falling theory. Evolution casts no shadow on the question of existence or non-existence of a God. Anyone, be they militant atheists like Dr. Suzuki or militant fools (did I just write that?!) like Boards.ie user JC who claims it does is making a very large, if subtle mistake.

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote:

Atheist, you seem bothered by the fact that teaching our kids creationism would be indoctrinating them with Christianity? On the flip side it could be argued that teaching evolution is indoctrinating impressionable young minds that there is no god of any sort. Is that right?:eek:

I'm not bothered by the teaching of biblical creation in religion class. (I went to a RC school where the priests were very often better teachers). But not science class. Creationism is science with an agenda - and real science has no agenda.

Excelsior already iterated my thoughts re the notion that evolution indoctrinates the idea that there is no God. I don't believe that to be true, but whether it does or not is irrelevant. Why should an established scientific theory be held back from children because it might cause doubt in their minds as to the existance of God? Children go to school to be educated about life and world. Ultimately the decision what to believe in is theirs. Would you prefer to have a educated person of faith, or one that has only been fed certain theories?

Better learn it in the classroom than on Wiki.

robindch

> Evolution, and everything I have ever read, does not stand
> up scientifically, in fact science disproves evolution.

In that case, you do not appear to understand science, or evolution, or both.

How have you studied it? Who and what have you read? Did you read any of the links I posted? The content of your message suggests that you haven't.

BrianCalgary

I have read so much on the subject over the last 20 years that I can't list them all. The main problem that I see in pro-evolution books is that the paleantologists, biologists, physicians and chemists look at it from their own field of expertise and prove the theory, However when you put them all together and try to apply the theory to 100% of all matter and all living things it just doesn't add up.

The website you pinted us to was interesting and I read the dissertation on mathematics, where the author compared the primordial soup to a 6/49 lottery (pick 6 number out of 49). His comparison doesn't work beacause he is comparing the odds of one person winning within a closed system. Where the odds compared should be even one person winning in a closed system.

The primordial soup didn't require a 'winner' and it was in a wide open system.

That is one example.

robindch

> Will this thread ever end?

No

> All scientific fact is theory.

Not really. A "theory" is well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses, while a "fact" is an observation confirmed to such an extent that it's reasonable to offer provisional agreement that the observation is accurate.

The two words have quite distinct and strict meanings in professional scientific circles which are different, and importantly so, from the usual colloquial meanings which creationists prefer to use (as it's easier to be rhetorical about them, when they mean what you want them to mean). Read up on Karl Popper for a deeper treatment of these and the important concept of falsification and how important it is.

> [...] evolution [...] On its own it is very strong, although many
> holes can be apparently poked in it by the likes of Ken Ham

Holes can be poked in it because Ken Ham and his friends continually lie -- as Jones said quite clearly in his judgement -- about evolution, they lie about its source facts and they lie about its conclusions. Having lied about what it is, it's then quite easy to poke holes in it and Ham and his friends are quite happy to do this. I've shown Ham's cheerfully blatant dishonesty often enough here that I don't think I need to do it again (see the exhausting, but non-exhaustive, list of creationist claims at the talkorigins).

> science is increasingly effective at answering the question we set it: How?
> I also am convinced by a faith informed by reason that Jesus is the
> answer to the question Why.

A lot of recent research -- in the area of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary and developmental biology -- is beginning to provide very simple and very reasonable answers to a lot of the "why" questions too.

robindch

> [BrianCalgary] I read the dissertation on mathematics

Can you post the URL for this, please?

Excelsior

I have read Popper and Kuhn and there is no reason why a fundie wouldn't claim gravity to be "nothing more than a theory". This is the point I was trying to make.

Research can refine the answer of how but it will always be asumption when moving into why.

BrianCalgary

Hi Robin

I thought you had left this link, but you hadn't. I have no idea where I got it.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

Excelsior: what's a fundie?

robindch

> The main problem that I see in pro-evolution books is
> that the paleantologists, biologists, physicians and
> chemists look at it from their own field of expertise
> and prove the theory [...]

Two things:

1. Theories cannot be proved, all you can do is falsify them -- it is a common misconception amongst non-scientists that theories *can* be proved. See my definition of 'theory' above and the philosophical works of Karl Popper whom I mentioned.

2. You haven't actually shown a specific problem which falsifies evolution -- in your posting, you've noted what you feel is a problem with a rebuttal to creationist claims concerning biogenesis, but biogenesis is not evolution and has little to do with it.

> However when you put them all together and try to apply
> the theory to 100% of all matter and all living things it just
> doesn't add up.

Can you provide a concrete example of something that "doesn't add up", that isn't already explained in the talkorigins website (I'm trying to save myself from cutting'n'pasting a reply)

WRT biogenesis:

> His comparison doesn't work beacause he is comparing the odds
> of one person winning within a closed system. Where the odds
> compared should be even one person winning in a closed system.
> The primordial soup didn't require a 'winner' and it was in a wide
> open system.

I'm not sure that I understand your point here. Are you saying that his lottery analogy is wrong, or the proposed physical process which operates with similar mathematics, is not an accurate description of what actually happens?

> what's a fundie?

A fundamentalist.

BrianCalgary

I'll try and clarify the probability.

In the websites example he uses the probability of one person winning the lottery, picking the right 6 numbers our of 49.
In the 'soup' that would mean the odds of an amino acid forming in one particular location.

I argue he should be using the odds of anyone winning the lottery versus the odds of an amino acid forming randomly any where.

In order for the evolutionary process to get kick started you need on amino acid forming somewhere at sometime, in conjunction with other amino acids in the same place at the same time to come together to form the first protein. The system is huge throughout the entire world with the oucome not having to happen.
Whereas in the lottery you have only 49 numbers from which to choose, which makes the probabilty of one person picking the correct numbers quite high. Since winning happens with regularity the odds of someone winning have been proven to be quite high.

The chance of rolling a particular number on a die is 6 to 1. Whereas the odds of rolling 'a' number are 1 to 1. The odds of my sequence of numbers coming up in the lottery are astronomical but, the odds of 'a' sequence coming up are 1 to 1.

The comparisons used on the said website are not equal comparisons.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'll try and clarify the probability.

In the websites example he uses the probability of one person winning the lottery, picking the right 6 numbers our of 49.
In the 'soup' that would mean the odds of an amino acid forming in one particular location.

I argue he should be using the odds of anyone winning the lottery versus the odds of an amino acid forming randomly any where.

In order for the evolutionary process to get kick started you need on amino acid forming somewhere at sometime, in conjunction with other amino acids in the same place at the same time to come together to form the first protein. The system is huge throughout the entire world with the oucome not having to happen.
Whereas in the lottery you have only 49 numbers from which to choose, which makes the probabilty of one person picking the correct numbers quite high. Since winning happens with regularity the odds of someone winning have been proven to be quite high.

The chance of rolling a particular number on a die is 6 to 1. Whereas the odds of rolling 'a' number are 1 to 1. The odds of my sequence of numbers coming up in the lottery are astronomical but, the odds of 'a' sequence coming up are 1 to 1.

The comparisons used on the said website are not equal comparisons.

The objections you note demonstrate that the probability of an amino acid forming is higher than the analogy immediately illustrates.

robindch

> In the 'soup' that would mean the odds of an amino acid forming
> in one particular location. [...] in the lottery you have only 49
> numbers from which to choose, which makes the probabilty of
> one person picking the correct numbers quite high. Since
> winning happens with regularity the odds of someone
> winning have been proven to be quite high.

From the above, it seems that you do not understand how probability operates nor how the mathematics, or the mathematical modelling, works. I suggest that the original article might be easier to understand if you print it out and work through it sentence by sentence. Probability is a difficult topic at the best of times and it's easy to make conceptual mistakes.

To restate an earlier point: Biogenesis is not "evolution". Even if you could disprove any of the current biogenesis hypotheses (which you haven't), it has no bearing on evolution which is concerned with the propagation of genes and the adaption of species. It is not not concerned with how it all "got started". Make sure that you are criticizing and discarding the appropriate theory before drawing your conclusions.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

The objections you note demonstrate that the probability of an amino acid forming is higher than the analogy immediately illustrates.

How?
To get an amino acid to come together out of a primordial soup is in the neighbourhood of 1 in 10 to the power of 80. (That number is going by memory, I don't have my info at hand.) Dawkins himself has the odds of that are greater than 1 in 10 to the 20 as being impossible. (Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146)

It has been reported that the odds of the first reproducing molecule forming by random chance is 10 to the power of 4,478,296.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=460

samb

Brian, hasn't the catholic church accepted evolution? I thought they did? What do you believe with regard the origins of species?

Do you not accept that genes within individuals who reproduce more will increase in frequency within a population?

You can believe God sparked life into existance, created the big bang etc. but you cannot refute evolution

robindch

> To get an amino acid to come together out of a primordial soup
> is in the neighbourhood of 1 in 10 to the power of 80.

This is an untruth which is frequently circulated by many creationists, including the ICR, the Discovery Institute, Ken Ham, convicted tax fraud Kent Hovind and others.

In the 1950's, Stanley Miller built a simple gadget which simulated what is believed by many people to have been the conditions on an early Earth. He turned it on and after one week, had synthesized various amino acids and other organic compounds. You can find the details of this experiment, and the results of some subsequent ones at:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

In short, your quoted figure is quite wrong.

> Dawkins himself has the odds of that are greater than
> 1 in 10 to the 20 as being impossible

You are not being particularly honest in mixing together creationist untruths with what looks to me like a misquotation from Richard Dawkins to conclude that biogenesis is impossible. For what it's worth, a molecular event of probability of 1:10^20 are considered virtual certainties in chemistry, given that Avogadro's Number is one thousand times that at 6.0x10^23.

> It has been reported that the odds of the first reproducing
> molecule forming by random chance is 10 to the power of 4,478,296.

Firstly, the article you've linked to is mixing up evolution with biogenesis which, as I've already explained twice to you, are completely different things. Let me put it more clearly:

Biogenesis is not evolution.

You've rightly point out that this figure is coming from the ICR, one of the leading creationist organizations, and builds on the work of Behe and Demski. The work of the ICR, and Behe and Demski has been discarded by all serious researchers in the field, as you'll find out if you take the time to look at the talkorigins website that I've referred to several times already.

BrianCalgary

Hey Samb. Congrats on the Rovers promotion. Have an aquantance here from Sligo.

I don't know the Catholic churches position on this. But, throughout history churches have not proven to be the most reliable sources of opinion on many matters.

Genetics is not my strong suit, I do know that bad genes seem to rear their ugly heads when you have a closed system of reproduction. All you have to do is go to a Hutterite or Amish colony and you can see it. (Even the Royal family) So I guess my answer to your question would be yes genes do increase in frequency, with the 'deformities' (I don't think this is the right word) takeing over. Which fits the natural law that everything is running down. Do we see a greater instance of syndromes in our society today as a result of the weakening of genetics? Evolution tells us that nature gets stronger as time goes on. I certainly don't see that happening.

As far as you question 'You can believe God sparked life into existance, created the big bang etc. but you cannot refute evolution', you can believe the first part and still have a relationship with Christ (I have a good friend who would fit into that category). On part two, there are just far too many holes in evolutions claims and so little proof that I can easily refute it.

robindch

Brian -

> churches have not proven to be the most reliable sources of
> opinion on many matters.

That, I think, would stand as one of the grander understatements of the last two millennia!

> genes do increase in frequency, with the 'deformities' (I don't
> think this is the right word) takeing over.

You said earlier on today that you'd studied "so much on the subject over the last 20 years" that you wouldn't be able to list how much you'd read, but here, you seem unfamiliar with the basic biological fact that the number of genes remains (almost) constant from generation to generation.

The 'deformities' you believe "take over" to are actually quite rare. What's far more common are recessive genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis (high rates in Ireland, due to long-term inbreeding within an island population), Tay-Sachs disease (within Jewish populations) etc, etc,.

So I ask again, what reference material have you read? You do not seem to be very well informed for somebody who's publicly claimed twenty years of relevant experience.

> Evolution tells us that nature gets stronger as time goes on.

"Evolution" says no such thing. Where did you read this?

The current Theory of Evolution does hypothesize that organisms which produce more offspring than can survive, will evolve to be able to produce at least as many as the local environment can support. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "strength", whatever that might be in this context.

> On part two, there are just far too many holes in evolutions
> claims and so little proof that I can easily refute it.

Thus far, you've not produced any rebuttal of any aspect of the current Theory of Evolution. So, why not pick one of the "far too many" holes and we'll see how we get on with that?

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

there are just far too many holes in evolutions claims and so little proof that I can easily refute it.

Could you please explain to us your understanding of how evolution works. I don't think you understand it, in which case you are finding holes in the wrong thoery.

If infact you do understand evolution properly, could you please test our ability to plug those holes of yours. Your mind will be overflowing with wonder in no time.

Excelsior

Brian, fundies put the fun (or the mentalist) back into fundamentalism.

robindch

> fundies put the fun [...]

Fundies: what happens when "fun" "dies"?
or, "fundamentalism: Connecting fundaments with Ism's?"

edit - shouldn't that be:

fundamentalism - what happens when you connect an arsehole to an 'ism'

...?

pH

Fundies
- Similar to normal underwear - just more entertaining somehow.

BrianCalgary

OK lets try and explain it a little better.

Robin: "The 'deformities' you believe "take over" to are actually quite rare. What's far more common are recessive genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis (high rates in Ireland, due to long-term inbreeding within an island population), Tay-Sachs disease (within Jewish populations) etc, etc,."

The syndromes that come on as a result of genetics are not quite rare. The incidence of genetic syndromes are increasing, as the gene pool weakens. The increased cases in asthma, downs syndrome, autism, to name but a few.

Evolution does tell us that nature gets stronger. One of the premises of evolution is survival of the fittest. The strong will survive and dominate. Evolution also tells us that that life started as a one celled living being and then got stronger as it evolved into more complex organisms. Also with genetices, any time experiments are done, what the evolutionist hopes for with a new species becomes unable to procreate. The mule as an example or the fruit fly that is engineered to get that extra set of wings. Yet evolution tells us not to worry, you can't take that into consideration over the millenia, it just works. So how do new species develop when it has been observe through experimentation that any mutations are not worthwhile and the result is an infertile being?

So we get an observable with todays circumstances, and a biology text from high school, that tells us that deformities will take over within the genes. Compare that with evolution that tells us that everything gets stronger.

Another law that comes straight from any biology text is that life begets life. The first living organism has to break the law of biogenesis. How does evolution occur if life has to come from non-living matter?

Now compare that with thermodynamics which is not a theory but a fact that everything detoriorates from order to chaos. However in order for evolution to happen we have a rather confused and disorderly primordial soup that starts to get orderly, this conradicts scientific laws. As we know that the universe is running down.

Another huge hole in evolutionary theory is the big bang. As stated by an astute grade 9 student, first there was nothing, then it exploded? The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred, where did the energy come from to explode the nothingeness?

Then we can talk about the fossil record. Where are all the transitional species that would have had to have existed during all the transitions from less developed to more developed?

Then we can talk about mathematical odds of even the first amino acid forming, which is only the building block of the protein which is the building block of the first cell, which is a highly complex carbon based machine. How does that beat the odds and form into existence?

Just a few questions that no evolutionist has ever been able to answer. So lets start with the first one, first there was nothing then it exploded?

robindch

> > [RH] "The 'deformities' you believe "take over" to are actually quite rare.
> > What's far more common are recessive genetic diseases [...]
>
> [BC] The syndromes that come on as a result of genetics are not quite rare.

Read these three sentences again and see if you can spot the non-sequitur.

> Evolution does tell us that nature gets stronger.

Untrue. Again, I ask you: In what biology book did you read this?

> One of the premises of evolution is survival of the fittest.

Untrue. Evolution can be briefly and more-or-less accurately summarized as "differential reproductive success". The only people who refer to evolution as "survival of the fittest" are creationists. Even Darwin himself didn't use the phrase. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

> So how do new species develop when it has been observe through experimentation that any mutations are not worthwhile [...]

Untrue. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

> [...] and the result is an infertile being?

Untrue. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

> How does evolution occur if life has to come from non-living matter?

Again, for the fourth time, evolution is not biogenesis. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

> thermodynamics which is not a theory but a fact that everything detoriorates from order to chaos

Untrue. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html

> Another huge hole in evolutionary theory is the big bang.

Untrue. Evolution concerns biology and genetics, while the Big Bang comes from cosmic physics. Evolution is not cosmic physics. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html

> The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred, where did the energy come from to explode the nothingeness?

The Big Bang was not a chemical explosion as you seem to think, but a the eruption of a singularity within space-time, before the existence of which, the joint concepts of both space and time had no meaning. As this stuff is quite complex, if I were you I'd leave this one for the time being and get the simpler biological stuff right first, before trying out quantum mechanics.

> Where are all the transitional species that would have had to have existed during all the transitions from less developed to more developed?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html

> Then we can talk about mathematical odds of even the first amino acid forming,

Did you bother to reading my message from last night? I'll include the quote here:

In the 1950's, Stanley Miller built a simple gadget which simulated what is believed by many people to have been the conditions on an early Earth. He turned it on and after one week, had synthesized various amino acids and other organic compounds. You can find the details of this experiment, and the results of some subsequent ones at:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

> How does that beat the odds and form into existence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

> first there was nothing then it exploded?

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/did_the_big_bang_have_a_cause.htm

> Just a few questions that no evolutionist has ever been able to answer.

You're certainly singing from the first page of the creationist hymnbook -- in your one short posting, you've trotted out twelve easy questions which are answered on a website I've referred you to four times already.

Why don't you make an effort to learn?

The problem that you are experiencing is that you seem to have read and swallowed twenty years worth of creationist propaganda. Consequently, you are misinformed about evolution, paleontology, zoology, molecular and cellular biology, probability, cosmology, QM, etc, etc etc. You can, of course, make the effort find out, and you might even enjoy learning about what's in the world from the people who helped to discover it, but you have to make the effort yourself. So far, you don't seem to have read or understood the detail of any of my responses (which makes me wonder why I'm bothering to write this posting) so I've a pretty limited expectation, but it's up to you -- learn or remain ignorant of the world you live in. One thing is certainly clear: whatever you're reading at the moment is tripe.

BrianCalgary

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

> So how do new species develop when it has been observe through experimentation that any mutations are not worthwhile [...]

Untrue. See:

Well I checked this link and then went beyond to another link. Throughout the experiments, which were done by an intelligence in a closed system, the plants and bacteria were quite able to adapt to their environments. You have no argument there about species adaptation to new or changing environments. But after all is said and done that through the experiments the species that we started with is still the same species that we finished with.

The Big Bang has to be applied to evolution, as evolution is an explanation of origens. And the Big Bang is a part of that origen.

If you don't agree then please define for us all as to what is evolution?

As I stated before that if you buy into Evolution and therefore no god. Then all things, origins, life, matter have to be explained in the criteria as set out. Also, all scientific disciplines, mathematics, physics, chemistry, zoology, genetics, archaeology MUST be explained within the context of no creator.

What I tried to communicate is that any new life form engineered in the lab is impotent. Again see the mules and fruit flies with extra wings that couldn't fly. Th eexamples given on the link provided are adaptations to environment. Goodness, I've experienced that while living in th ecold climes that I do. I find 25 degrees to be very hot, when I was young 25 degrees was quite pleasant.

God explains it all. He created the universe. He created all matter and energy. He created all life. He set all the physiacl laws that we live under. He set th emoon and the sun the correct distance from the Earth so that we could live.

If there is no God you have to answer these basic questions:

Where does matter come from?
What was the source of energy needed to start everything up?
How did the first non-living organism arise from non living matter?
How did that organism beat the odds of even forming?
How do we go from lesser organisms to higher organisms?

robindch

> You have no argument there about species adaptation to new or
> changing environments. But after all is said and done that through
> the experiments the species that we started with is still the same
> species that we finished with.

I answered this as well earlier on today, but you haven't read what I wrote, so I'll repeat the link here for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Look at the third bit, on "Ring Species".

I couldn't be bothered looking at the rest of your questions for which you can find answers in ten seconds with google. You'll ignore anything I give as surely as you ignored my posting above and I really do have better things to do with my time than chuck it into a vacuum.

God explains it all. He created the universe. He created all matter and energy. He created all life. He set all the physiacl laws that we live under. He set th emoon and the sun the correct distance from the Earth so that we could live.

And that just about wraps it up for creationism -- an idea which fits in a small box. What a vacant, sad and deadening proposition it is.

BrianCalgary

Well I read about the ring species. And guess what,

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are


the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001).
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

Guess what, the author is speaking about differences within a species. But, no new species. I'm beginning to think you can't understand my simple question: Where are the new species? I have read all sorts of stuff like this. But, still no new species coming from the joining together of two parents producing a different offspring. Strictly species adapting.

So I ask: Define evolution?

and answer th equestions on my last post:
Where does matter come from?
What was the source of energy needed to start everything up?
How did the first non-living organism arise from non living matter?
How did that organism beat the odds of even forming?
How do we go from lesser organisms to higher organisms?

robindch

> But, no new species. I'm beginning to think you can't understand
> my simple question: Where are the new species?

The secret is in the second sentence which you've helpfully quoted. It's the bit which reads:

"the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed"

...which is what most biologists define as 'separate species'. If you don't like that definition -- as I assume you probably won't -- you can try some of the other mechanisms listed on the same page. And since you may not like those ones either, you can try this longer list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

And as you're unlikely to like that one, you can try this 11,000 word dissertation on the topic here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

> I have read all sorts of stuff like this. But, still no new species
> coming from the joining together of two parents producing a
> different offspring.

There's plenty of that too:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html#Polyploidy_and_Speciation

And it's in this link too:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

But regardless of all of the above, what's interesting is that your postings are almost hilariously stereotypical of other creationists:

• You don't understand the topic you're criticizing
• You claim vast experience of biology, but remain unfamiliar with its most basic facts
• You can't distinguish biogenesis from evolution, or cosmic physics from paleontology
• You rarely read any replies, and resort to repetition to get your "message" across
• You think that declaring that "god explains it all" is an explanation
• Best of all, like the moon-hoaxers and homeopaths, your objections are simplistic and home-grown. You don't even know how to ask the difficult questions.

Seen it all before.:)

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

>

"the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed"

...which is what most biologists define as 'separate species'. If you don't like that definition -- as I assume you probably won't -- you can try some of the other mechanisms listed on the same page. And since you may not like those ones either, you can try this longer list:


And as you're unlikely to like that one, you can try this 11,000 word dissertation on the topic here:


http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html#Polyploidy_and_Speciation

• You don't understand the topic you're criticizing - Actually I would claim that I do. All that has been argued here is biology.
• You claim vast experience of biology, but remain unfamiliar with its most basic facts. - I don't claim vast experience in biology, only readings on the whole issue of evolution, which encompasses a lot more than biology
• You can't distinguish biogenesis from evolution, or cosmic physics from paleontology - I would argue that these have to be taken into account when studying evolution. The link on the Big Bang just gives the evidence that it happened. I am not going to argue how God did it. The link doesn't answer the question 'where does the matter come from? and the energy for the explosion says that it exists within the matter.
• You rarely read any replies, and resort to repetition to get your "message" across. - Maybe because you have failed to answer my basic questions. I do admit that I haven't been able to go to all the links.
• You think that declaring that "god explains it all" is an explanation - You have failed to give an explanation for the list of questions given and how evolution answers them. Wheras God can answer those questions.
• Best of all, like the moon-hoaxers and homeopaths, your objections are simplistic and home-grown. You don't even know how to ask the difficult questions. - Maybe the questions are quite simple. As listed. None of which you have answered.

Seen it all before.:)

I agree. I have seen it all before to. The failure to answer ALL the questions asked.
The only query that you have come close to answering is the new species question. You had concluded that I wouldn't like them. Quite an assumption because I found those links quite interesting and worth exploring further.
Yes, with regard to the salamanders on the opposite sides of the mountain. They are salamanders, the author even refers to them as sub-species. So what constitutes a species?

Where does the name calling come in? What is a moon-hoaxer and a homeopath?