|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2003 : 13:32:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is no proof of any missing link in any stage of development in any part of the evolutionary theory of origin.
You're right! The links aren't missing. Cinsidering the the conditions required to make a fossil, the actual fossil record is far more complete than one would expect. Would you care for a list of transitionals, or would you prefer to go to your local Museum of Natural History and see a few of them for yourself? |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 13:52:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
It has merit in my opinion. Nuff said.
We're not talking about your taste in pizza, and your 'opinion' regarding the merit of an Intelligent Design 'Theory' is entirely worthless, as is mine. What invests any scientific theory with value is its testability and predictivity - 'God(s) Did It' is simply not a theory. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 14:37:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
There is no proof of any missing link in any stage of development in any part of the evolutionary theory of origin.
I seriously doubt that you understand what you wrote. Try again.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Thus, the HUGE leap of logic.
"Thus" is unnecessarily pretentious, particulary since the sentence exposes a poverty of logic and an embarrassing failure to distinguish between the a posteriori and the a priori, i.e., there is no "leap of logic" (HUGH or otherwise) involved at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
One form of reproduction is working fine, ...
What does "working fine" have to do with anything?
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
... but another, more susceptible to elimination begins mysteriously as two seperate life forms. Now two life forms must now find each other, coexist and copulate in order to keep this species going.
Subjective bullpuckie! What does "more susceptible to elimination" have to do with anything? Why do you choose to label this development 'mysterious' but not the other? And, come to think of it, what about facultative parthenogens?
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
By Intelligent design, with inbuilt programming to do just that, surely. By accidental mutation with no inbuilt programming, and only simple chance to make it happen, forget it. Anybody want to do the odds on that one?
The odds of sexual reproduction appearing as a result of "Intelligent design, with inbuilt programming" are exactly the same as those of sexual reproduction appearing as a result of algae coming into contact with pixie poop - "God(s) did it" is not a theory.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 14:57:48 [Permalink]
|
Doomar & DA,
Since I can scarcely improve on CA's most recent dissection, I'll just remind that neither of you have yet answered the question, "What does ID say about origins and development?" Is it:
1. Evidence that God helped evolution progress by creating or manipulating specific structures
OR
2. Evidence that God created certain beings from whole cloth.
OR
3. None of the above. Please specify.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 15:32:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Ok, PhD. Ya got me, argh.... I really don't' think we are going to solve this question in our forum. I am just throwing out some ideas to provoke thought about some of these issues. I honestly have not seen any explanation by evolutionists about how this first "gooey" form of life automatically had an ability to reproduce. The transition from asexual to sexual is another hugh leap of logic. Wow, how many billions of years for that to happen by accident and yet the asexual types still continue on as usual. Just too many leaps of logic for me, y'all. I don't have that much faith.
Well our current understanding of biochemistry shows that proto cells divide naturally. After growing to a certain size they under go a form of simple fission with each daughter cell getting roughly half of the parent cell's contents. In fact we have created these proto cells in the lab and they do all the things a living cell does without all the parts. (From a solution of primitive molecules in a simulated aqueous solution of primitive Earth).
Here is the abstract of one article describing this area of very interesting research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1891592&dopt=Abstract
Notice that this proto cell does pretty much all of the things we expect of living things: metabolize, grow, reproduce, etc.
Here are the search results of a number of articles describing these proto cells and their abilities:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=1891592
Also with asexual to sexual we already have numerous living examples of organisms that toggle between the two strategies and we can see in living organisms quite easily how such a system could evolve.
So no there are no HUGE leaps of logic, only your inability to study the subject you are arguing against.
Also your idea that a female had to co-evolve with the male is ludricous. No such co-evolution was required, since we are the same species with the exact same genome with the exception of one chromosome. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 18:31:42 [Permalink]
|
Why is it that people that obviously skipped every single one of their natural science courses think they can read a pamphlet and "school" Nobel prize winning scientists? I'm not sure if it's more sad than it is scary or more scary than it is sad.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 18:51:47 [Permalink]
|
Well our current understanding of biochemistry shows that proto cells divide naturally. After growing to a certain size they under go a form of simple fission with each daughter cell getting roughly half of the parent cell's contents. In fact we have created these proto cells in the lab and they do all the things a living cell does without all the parts. (From a solution of primitive molecules in a simulated aqueous solution of primitive Earth).
Key word being "all the parts"
Notice that this proto cell does pretty much all of the things we expect of living things: metabolize, grow, reproduce, etc.
If they did just 25% more, they could win a prize. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Also with asexual to sexual we already have numerous living examples of organisms that toggle between the two strategies and we can see in living organisms quite easily how such a system could evolve.
So no there are no HUGE leaps of logic, only your inability to study the subject you are arguing against.
Some very good points. I would be interested in studying these species you mentioned.
Also your idea that a female had to co-evolve with the male is ludricous. No such co-evolution was required, since we are the same species with the exact same genome with the exception of one chromosome.[/quote]
In theory, yes, but in actuallity, keep in mind that if a male mutant life form begins with this new Sexual Reproduction ability, he would die as the only one of its kind without the female counterpart. I understand how the difference between male and female is within this species, but logically, it does need the counterpart to reproduce, one mutant species by itself cannot do this. This is my point, perhaps made poorly. If you are saying that multiple mutants of the same kind began in the same local, then I could see your point. The inbuilt programming, however, to reproduce in this manner between these life forms would be an extremely complex thing to evolve from a much simpler lifeform. You are stating that there are creatures that have both asexual and sexual capabilities within themselves. That is nice, but I am before this stage, as you see it, where no creature has sexual reproduction capability. Of course, if you were right, you must prove that this particular creature that has both these capablities did indeed come before the next creature up the chain. That might be difficult. Then there are just the numbers. Millions of species of insects, birds, plants, fish, mammals, reptiles, many of them depending on the other to achieve existence, yet mysteriously developing apart from each other over millions of years and living in totally isolated locales from the creatures they supposedly mutated from. So easy to just throw in a few million more years to come up with some reason for it. Maybe a few million more years and you'll actually have all thinking, reasoning people believing this crap. Not. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 19:01:35 [Permalink]
|
Doomar said: There is no proof of any missing link in any stage of development in any part of the evolutionary theory of origin
Tim says:You're right! The links aren't missing. Cinsidering the the conditions required to make a fossil, the actual fossil record is far more complete than one would expect. Would you care for a list of transitionals, or would you prefer to go to your local Museum of Natural History and see a few of them for yourself?
A play on words, but still, the links are missing. Darwin's theory depended upon links between the species being found. Much toodo was made of "such and such men" showing a link from modern man to prehistoric man. All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 19:11:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests.
Then you must know some of these tests...right? It would be news to me since real scientists seem to have more than enough. I am guessing you have never been to a museum of natural histiry where they display such fossils. San Diego's Museum of Man has Lucy which you can go check out for yourself. But I am guessing you will ignore that because you have memorized that phrase: "All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests." without knowing of any such tests yourself. How could you since it's a flat out lie. I've seen such fossils with my own eyes and so could you if you bothered and didn't just copy and paste from some anti-science website.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 19:14:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests.
Which of these Hominids have been "diproven" and by whom? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 19:23:18 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by PhDreamer
Doomar & DA,
Since I can scarcely improve on CA's most recent dissection, I'll just remind that neither of you have yet answered the question, "What does ID say about origins and development?" Is it:
1. Evidence that God helped evolution progress by creating or manipulating specific structures
OR
2. Evidence that God created certain beings from whole cloth.
OR
3. None of the above. Please specify.
I would answer 3. None of the above. There are just too many holes in evolutionary theory to even include it. Personally, I am a creationist with the belief that God designed and made each species separately and independently of each other. It didn't take him that long to do it either. The intelligent design becomes more and more apparent with each discovery of science. The more individual animals are studied, the more complex and amazing their behavior is understood to be. There are creatures and plants that live deep in the ocean that cannot live outside of that immense pressure. Many have yet to be discovered. There are animals that live only in the extreme cold and others that live only in extreme heat. The same with plant life. There are birds and insects that are able to migrate to places they've never been before with an inbuilt sense of direction, so exact that we are yet to understand how it can be. Just consider the human eye for a moment. Intelligent people have been trying to duplicate its abilities for many years without success, but even the crude attempts are marvelous inventions in and of themselves with great complexity and tremendous thought behind each invention (Nikon camera, digital camcorders). We marvel at such things and extol such inventors, yet we find it hard to acknowledge a greater, unseen being behind the infinitely more complex inventions as the human eye or human brain and think it entirely rational to explain away such infinite genious with the crazy idea that it just evolved over billions of years. May God have mercy on us.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 19:48:21 [Permalink]
|
Wow, you sure know a lot about science that some of the greatest minds don't know. Are you going to shoot down Einstein next? You really need to open that dictionary and see the difference between a theory and a notion.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 21:39:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer
Doomar & DA,
Since I can scarcely improve on CA's most recent dissection, I'll just remind that neither of you have yet answered the question, "What does ID say about origins and development?" Is it:
1. Evidence that God helped evolution progress by creating or manipulating specific structures
OR
2. Evidence that God created certain beings from whole cloth.
OR
3. None of the above. Please specify.
I would answer 3. None of the above. There are just too many holes in evolutionary theory to even include it.
Does that make you smarter than Michael Behe? Looking back at this thread, it appears the fine pro-science minds here have filled some of your precious holes. Are there still too many?
quote:
Personally, I am a creationist with the belief that God designed and made each species separately and independently of each other. It didn't take him that long to do it either.
Right, only a couple of days. Or was that a couple of million years? What was that Bible verse again? Dangitall, I can't never keep them versions of creationism separate.
quote:
The intelligent design becomes more and more apparent with each discovery of science.
Are you going to tell the biologists this? I mean, if you don't set them straight, they'll just go on thinking that the behavioral similarities and related structures they keep finding are actually predicted by evolutionary theory.
quote:
The more individual animals are studied, the more complex and amazing their behavior is understood to be.
Weird sentence. The more we understand their behavior, the more amazing it becomes?
quote:
There are creatures and plants that live deep in the ocean that cannot live outside of that immense pressure. Many have yet to be discovered. There are animals that live only in the extreme cold and others that live only in extreme heat. The same with plant life. There are birds and insects that are able to migrate to places they've never been before with an inbuilt sense of direction, so exact that we are yet to understand how it can be.
And yet none of this poses the slightest problem for evolutionary theory. By the by, William of Ockham called. You can keep the razor. You need it more than he does.
quote:
Just consider the human eye for a moment. Intelligent people have been trying to duplicate its abilities for many years without success, but even the crude attempts are marvelous inventions in and of themselves with great complexity and tremendous thought behind each invention (Nikon camera, digital camcorders).
Well, which is it? Have "intelligent people" duplicated its abilities or not? You're not talking about how the sensitive cells that make up the retina are wired backwards are you? Alas, sadly, we have not duplicated that brilliance of divine engineering as yet. 
quote:
We marvel at such things and extol such inventors, yet we find it hard to acknowledge a greater, unseen being behind the infinitely more complex inventions as the human eye or human brain and think it entirely rational to explain away such infinite genious with the crazy idea that it just evolved over billions of years.
Silly, you got it backwards again. It's, "think it entirely rational to explain away such finely adapted structures with the crazy idea that it was just poofed into existence in one day (or one million years, whichever comes first).
quote:
May God have mercy on us.
Do colorless ideas sleep furiously? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 03:10:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A play on words, but still, the links are missing. Darwin's theory depended upon links between the species being found. Much toodo was made of "such and such men" showing a link from modern man to prehistoric man. All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests.
Transition to man is just one development we know.
Here are some examples of other transitional fields, creationists never dealt with (for obviuos reasons): IN the transitional field between amphibians ans reptiles we have some forms that can't even be classified. Scientists still do not know if they are belonging to one group or another. Now if that isn't a transitional form.
Same about reptiles to mammals.
And, talk about transition: Do you know how many fish species are existing that actually can walk over land? Some can even breathe air. I saw eels wandering around on land near the baltic sea several times in childhood. I had a fish in my aquarium that jumped off and that I finally found all dried, but in another room. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 05:26:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
from Doomar
There are creatures and plants that live deep in the ocean that cannot live outside of that immense pressure.
So where exactly did noah keep them?
quote:
from Doomar
Many have yet to be discovered
Surely not, noah found them all 4000 yrs ago, didn't he?
Can you now see how silly it is that you'll quite happily question and ridicule a science that has been in place for over 150yrs, tested and repeated in every developed country on the globe and endorsed by EVERY credible scientist since it's inception. Yet you'll quite happily and readily believe a little fairy story that contradicts the major part of YOUR arguements AGAINST evil-ution.
Think about it man!! |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
