How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Seriously, if anybody took a close look around them, they would realize that things were created, they didn't create themselves. Chaos does not begat order, only more chaos.

Au Contraire'! There is no chaos in this universe. You are confusing chaos with entropy, and they aren't the same thing at all. Entropy is absolutely necessary for order, if there were no Entropy THEN you would have chaos!

In order to have true chaos, you must be able to go up AND down the energy scale at will. Randomly. True chaos would include complex forms as well as void.

But things do not go up and down the energy scale. They go down, in one direction. And that is why you have these wonderful little quirks like spheres being the most common economical shape, and gravity, and cellular reactions that go one way in a predictable order.

There's very little chaos at all actually... What appears to be chaos is actually unpredictability due to the vast number of possible interactions...

All the interactions are individually predictable though. They don't change randomly.

Does this make me a "creationist" or believe in the theory of "creationism" No. It just makes sense to me. Look at a flower or a tree or even moss on a rock, there is extreme order. Where is the order in the Darwinian theory? I don't see it. Carry on wise ones...

You don't see the order?! Open your eyes! Evolution wouldn't be possible at all without a predictable set of underlying components!

A physical space with predictable laws, a genetic code to pass information about successful mutations and replication strategies, and a method for such mutations to happen. Take away any one of those things and evolution would not happen. And ALL of those things are based on predictable physical laws based on entropy.

Good grief, positing that things sprang out of nowhere at the whim or command of a supreme being is more closely akin to chaos than evolution...

Whether it was "directed" or not!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If evolution is true, isn't it true that a human can be traced back, in a direct line, to a one-celled thingy?

I imagine this would be the case. At the moment we have no way to measure/determine that though.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

unless we are talking chaos theory, blackheart, which theorises that when a species evolves to it's environment, and becomes so well adapted, and specialised, to that environment, then any change in the environment, lets say severe climatic change per se, and the species can not cope with the sudden change, and so fall into chaos, ie: extinction. but that's not chaos in the usual sense [ie: lack of order] anyway

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

unless we are talking chaos theory, blackheart, which theorises that when a species evolves to it's environment, and becomes so well adapted, and specialised, to that environment, then any change in the environment, lets say severe climatic change per se, and the species can not cope with the sudden change, and so fall into chaos, ie: extinction. but that's not chaos in the usual sense [ie: lack of order] anyway

Chaos theory is all about the unpredictable effects of "simplistic" rules on a matrix. And it does indeed get very unpredictable very rapidly. Especially with a large matrix.

And while it has been applied to evolution (Ad nauseum I think at times) I've never heard of it applied in quite that way to extinction....

Are you referring to a similarity between extinction and pattern collapse? I think so...

I'm not used to thinking of pattern collapse as chaos... Since pattern collapse is a function of the rule set, it's just part of a larger pattern that's unrecognizable... I suppose that IS why they call it chaos theory however... it certainly LOOKS like chaos...

[Lief Erikson]

I really don't have any time to respond much at this moment, but here goes for a little of your post, Blackheart.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
I do believe God intelligently designed life, and that was a critical point in what I was just arguing about. Perhaps he used evolution as a mechanism in his design, and perhaps not. I don't know.


See... the point is, that's a philosophical argument. It hasn't anything to do with science. It's not an unreasonable philosophical argument either, it's just that it hasn't got a hill of beans to do with anything scientific.

If you're going to complain that your apples are too orange and have a funny bumpy skin, I'm going to scoff at you. SCOFF!

What I was saying there wasn't an argument. It was an opinion, a statement of my beliefs to Insidious Rex.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Come on, Blackheart. You know that scientific theories for centuries and centuries have been accepted only to be discarded.


And why are they discarded? Because someone observes that the model does not predict data as well as a new model...

Granted.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Quote:
Not just something like "everyone knows." Lots of intelligent scientists are Christian and do not accept the theory of evolution.

Name some. I'm curious. Not that intelligent individuals can't be wrong. Anyone can be wrong. But eventually there accumulates a weight of evidence that is difficult to explain in any other way. Until you get a major paradigm shift. And no one has had any hint or whiff of data that is likely to do this with the theory of evolution any time soon.

One is Walter L. Bradley, PHD. Whom I will soon be quoting.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Quote:
Plenty of people expect more evidence against it to appear. Plenty more people are certain that the evidence against it now is very compelling. And they aren't all biased lunatics . Note that you yourself said that no further evidence is expected to come against it. I think that you are somewhat correct in this. Many scientists, and much of the world's population believe the theory of evolution and are unwilling to make any deviation from it. They discard evidence that comes against it or toss it all as "unreliable" without prior examination.

Where's all this evidence you keep referring to? Questions about dating techniques and fossil record gaps aren't compelling evidence. Of course there are non-biased lunatics looking at the data that isn't completely explained. Hell that's the only way you can get a PHD is to contribute something new. If you could add a refinement to a theory that better explains some relevant data, you are golden.

I've seen sites stacked with evidence for creationism, and probably can get you some links. I haven't sufficient inclination to sift through it myself.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Quote:
Actually, that is an extremely long jump. A uterus is an extremely controlled, incredibly complex environment. The conditions are designed to be conducive to the formation of a complex life form. The conditions of Earth at the time single celled organisms are supposed to have emerged was far from conducive to the formation of life.

Far from conducive? Are you kidding? It's like someone was making organic soup!

And if you don't like the example of cell speciation from combined haploids, go look at slime mold, a collective organism that arises from protozoa.

In the primordial soup theory that Miller tested, he used ammonia, methane and hydrogen. The trouble is, there isn't any evidence that these were a part of the environment of the early Earth. From 1980 on, NASA scientists have shown that. Instead, the early earth's atmosphere was composed of water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. So the experiment that text books argue proves early Earth conditions were conducive to life really are not being accurate.

Further, the assembly of even the simplest cells is a near impossibly complex task. Not something that can happen in the random, harsh conditions of early Earth.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What I was saying there wasn't an argument. It was an opinion, a statement of my beliefs to Insidious Rex.

Does that mean I can't scoff? I'm really starting to like that word.

One is Walter L. Bradley, PHD. Whom I will soon be quoting.

You don't mind if I go ahead and do a journal search ahead of time do you? Anything published in biology journals? What was his biology thesis? I don't recognize the name...

I've seen sites stacked with evidence for creationism, and probably can get you some links. I haven't sufficient inclination to sift through it myself.

I have sifted through a lot of it. One of the fringe benefits of being bored in a library... And while there's some interesting questions here and there, the mass of it is chaff. And most of it is arguments about dating methods and fossil gaps... Not that those aren't valid objections. But the models they offer to explain these things are wildly outlandish... and don't explain the mass of data very well at all.

In the primordial soup theory that Miller tested, he used ammonia, methane and hydrogen. The trouble is, there isn't any evidence that these were a part of the environment of the early Earth. From 1980 on, NASA scientists have shown that. Instead, the early earth's atmosphere was composed of water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. So the experiment that text books argue proves early Earth conditions were conducive to life really are not being accurate.

Which is why that model has been exhanged for one that posits the formation of those amino acids in an environment that does contain those particular materials in abundance. In staggering abundance actually.

The oort cloud, beyond the solar wind is amazingly rich in these materials. And it's quite likely that the original "dust" cloud was very similar during plantary formation. One is confronted by the prospect of a water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen environment (and liberal amounts of trace minerals such as sulpher) being literally SNOWED by amino acids all during it's coalescense...

Further, the assembly of even the simplest cells is a near impossibly complex task. Not something that can happen in the random, harsh conditions of early Earth.

Uhm... hum.... No it's not a near impossibly complex task. Under certain conditions it's nearly impossible to prevent...

Especially if you have ready made amino acids and protien building blocks falling out of the sky...

But all of this is more directly genisis theory... Which may or may not be relevant to the thread...

[Rían]

I'm finally able to post a bit in this thead - I'll have to just pick up at various places ...

I said : "If evolution is true, isn't it true that a human can be traced back, in a direct line, to a one-celled thingy?"

And IRex reponded:

Originally Posted by IRex

but this doesnt happen in one generation is my point.

And THAT statement, IMO, highlights one of the main problems in the theory of evolution - extrapolation over time, disregarding current observations.

When you say "this doesnt happen in one generation", I'm assuming you think it DOES happen over MANY generations, right? (and since I know you position on this issue, I'll go ahead and not wait for your answer! )

From my readings and observations, evolutionists think things like this: Here is a finch. We've observed it on this island, and observed changes in the island, and lo and behold, the finch has changed its beak structure and other things about it enough to make us decide to create a new species name for the changed finch. Therefore, a one-celled thingy can, given enough time, change into a human.

Do you evolutionists agree with this? Now of course, this is one example, in one area, but do any of you evolutionists disagree with the underlying idea?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Uhm... hum.... No it's not a near impossibly complex task. Under certain conditions it's nearly impossible to prevent...

Especially if you have ready made amino acids and protien building blocks falling out of the sky...

Lief, you have to remember that most evolutionists don't like to deal with origins of the universe theories. They say that that's beyond the scope of their theory (which is probably right). They prefer to start at their own MADE-UP (and not verifiable) starting point - that of an earth basically primed to create life out of non-life. This is commonly known as "stacking the deck". Of course if their starting point is not true, then there goes the entire theory... Blackheart starts even farther along than most evolutionists I've heard of - amino acids and protein building blocks falling out of the sky?! Well, I certainly hope if he thinks that's a possibility, that he admits that it's possible that God exists!

(and I don't object to a made-up starting point in one sense - you need to start somewhere after all! - but I object to it being "hidden" - IOW, there's one heck of a lot of unproven assumptions that the theory of evolution is resting on, and yet so many people claim it's fact ...)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

amino acids and basic protein strains existed in the waters of the earth, no dropping out of the sky and, as we all know, the basic coagulation of said amino acids produced basic viable deoxyribonucleic acids, which, as luck would have it, arranged themselves into double helixes, which quite happily brought about the first singular celled organisms over millenia

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

amino acids and basic protein strains existed in the waters of the earth...

How do you KNOW this? You weren't there; neither was any other person!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i was nearly tempted to go , but as i like you too much, you'll have to settle with a simple

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

my post hasn't appeared????
EDIT: there it is

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And THAT statement, IMO, highlights one of the main problems in the theory of evolution - extrapolation over time, disregarding current observations.

what current observations are being disregarded exactly? science studies ALL the data it has access to (not just the fossil record but DNA and current biodiversity and a long list of known facts studied through a multiplicity of sciences) and the best conclusion it comes to currently with this data is that evolution is largely responsible for the varieties of life we see on this planet. It does you no good to argue against a science simply because you cant see it (or measure it) with your own eyes. If thats your measuring stick then youll need to throw out quite a few well established scientific principles. Forget about studying 99% of the universe. Its too big for us to reach out and touch and see do stuff. We make lots and lots of assumptions when it comes to studying the universe. But this in no way makes our conclusions automatically wrong.

And you do realize that computer modeling of evolution has been achieved using the same genetic factors and the constant of a changing environment. And you get something that basically looks a lot like what we see in the wild: an ever changing DNA that leads to an ever changing phenotypic signature winding and twisting from one thing to millions of years later something very much different. Simply because it takes a long time doesnt make it impossible.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex

And you do realize that computer modeling of evolution has been achieved using the same genetic factors and the constant of a changing environment. ...

I am VERY familiar with computer models My major at uni was computer science, with an emphasis in simulation and math!

I have read of several computer models used to support evolution, and I have some objections to them, as a person that has a university degree in the subject. In fact, I even tried to go on whatever that site is you like so much (what was it called? I don't recall) and post my technical objections to the simulations, but the registration process was so involved, and they seemed so bias, that I finally dropped it.

Originally Posted by IRex

Simply because it takes a long time doesnt make it impossible.

Absolutely! I totally agree with you!!!

And something that I hope you can agree with me on - just because there is a lot of time, doesn't mean ANYTHING can happen!

Here's what I said:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

From my readings and observations, evolutionists think things like this: Here is a finch. We've observed it on this island, and observed changes in the island, and lo and behold, the finch has changed its beak structure and other things about it enough to make us decide to create a new species name for the changed finch. Therefore, a one-celled thingy can, given enough time, change into a human.

See, the statement I just quoted is like saying this : "I am in Boston. I know that if I walk long enough, I can get across town. I know that if I walk even longer (more time), I can get into New York. I know if I walk even longer (MORE time), I can get into Pennsylvania. Therefore, if I walk long enough (billions and billions of years ) I can walk to the SUN!

Evolution is NOT merely a matter of given enough time, there can be changes from one-celled thingys to humans and horses and birds and whatever. There must be a vehicle/mechanism involved. In the case of the walker, the vehicle/mechanism is walking, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to WALK to the sun, even given millions of years. In the case of evolution, the (current) vehicle is beneficial mutations and natural selection and buku years, and IMO, given these vehicles, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get from one-celled thingys to humans, even given buku years!

The "current observations" that are being disregarded are that finches remain finches, dogs remain dogs, horses remain horses, etc. etc. etc. One might say, "but a new species evolved!", but please remember that it is people that DEFINE the species, and the bird is still a bird, and the fish is still a fish, etc. THIS is OBSERVED; it is cold, hard, scientific fact. It is merely an educated GUESS and can never be anything else that evolution on the scale of one-celled thingys to man happened.

Many things, as you said, cannot be directly observed. However, things like evolution are NOT by ANY means on the same level as most other scientific fields. In evolution, we are either looking at the results of processes that occurred in the PAST (e.g., fossils) or we are looking at things in the present and EXTRAPOLATING backwards - so far backwards that any mathmetician would have nightmares about it!

It's so simple - all I ever fight for in this thread is an acknowledgement that evolution MAY NOT have happened - that we may NOT have been the product of chance and natural processes.

The theory of evolution starts (when people have the guts to acknowledge it) from a stacked deck (i.e., that the universe "somehow" came to be in such a way that life could start from non-life) - talk about faith! Then it moves on by adopting another faith-based tenet - that the changes were driven entirely by chance and natural causes. Then it looks for evidence to support this, and since it only has second or third hand evidence (things in the past or extrapolations), it is not too hard to manufacture ways to support the theory that match the data.

Darwin started off with gradualism and Lamarck's view of inheritance of acquired characteristics (i.e., giraffes stretching to get leaves off the top of trees will stretch their necks longer and PASS THIS ON to their offspring). It's been changed (and properly so, since the data didn't fit) to punctuated equilibrium and beneficial mutations. But we just don't see this first-hand at all - these are just educated guesses imposed on top of the data, with the underlying assumption that the process is entirely naturalistic.

All we see for a fact is that birds stubbornly remain birds, even if their beaks change (and creationists have NO problem with this!) Evolutionists cry that there just isn't enough time to see fish turn into birds. Well, I'm very sorry, but that doesn't somehow let them off the hook. Their theory continues to be unproven, and unproveable. It's a very nice theory - but it's unproven and unproveable.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We make lots and lots of assumptions when it comes to studying the universe. But this in no way makes our conclusions automatically wrong.

I agree. And I also agree that evolution, as currently described, MIGHT have happened

But given the data, I doubt it

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

From my readings and observations, evolutionists think things like this: Here is a finch. We've observed it on this island, and observed changes in the island, and lo and behold, the finch has changed its beak structure and other things about it enough to make us decide to create a new species name for the changed finch. Therefore, a one-celled thingy can, given enough time, change into a human.

Do you evolutionists agree with this? Now of course, this is one example, in one area, but do any of you evolutionists disagree with the underlying idea?

You are leaving out quite a large gap of information. All the theory states is that according to the best possible model and the available data, there is currently no other credible (empirically verifiable) alternative to the idea that all life arose form single celled.. thingys... rofl...

Sorry but when you say thingys I am forced to confront the mental image of primordial seas teeming with free ranging phallus shaped objects.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Blackheart starts even farther along than most evolutionists I've heard of - amino acids and protein building blocks falling out of the sky?! Well, I certainly hope if he thinks that's a possibility, that he admits that it's possible that God exists!

I never said it was impossible. I have stated on several occasions that it is, however, impossible to empirically test for the existence of god, and therefore he will have to be left out of scientific discussions.

Many scientists will go even further than you think, and state that conditions for life are indeed stacked in this universe. It's amazingly well suited. And it would take only a few VERY minor adjustments to some fundamental laws to turn it into a VERY hostile place.

But beyond that you can't empirically test anything about the likelyhood of such an occurence. For all we know this universe exists right along side a hundred thousand other universes that are competely dead. Of course this is the only one we know about, it's the only one we have access to.

We're in the same position as a child who's parents always paint his face purple before he goes to bed. He thinks that's perfectly normal, and that every family does this, and will continue to do so until: He is shocked to find out that his parents were weird!

or alternately we find out that he lives in an alternate universe where every child must have thier face painted in order to keep their brains from being sucked out by low flying bain suckers...

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In the case of evolution, the (current) vehicle is beneficial mutations and natural selection and buku years, and IMO, given these vehicles, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get from one-celled thingys to humans, even given buku years!

The "current observations" that are being disregarded are that finches remain finches, dogs remain dogs, horses remain horses, etc. etc. etc. One might say, "but a new species evolved!", but please remember that it is people that DEFINE the species, and the bird is still a bird, and the fish is still a fish, etc.

I have to point out that it is not people who decided that dogs can't interbreed with cats. And you can also go to the fossil record and point to a time when dogs and cats did not exist. So either:

a) Everything science has deducted about the fossil record is wrong
b) cats (and dogs) were in fact in some pre-cat/dog form and were still probably incapable of breeding with modern cats (in which case they ARE a different species)
c) dogs and cats evolved from earlier species.

Not to mention that we have the ability to now create our own experiment by manipulating the genome of an organism. So much so that the organism cannot breed true with the original species.

Since from what we know of genetic drift over time leads us to believe that when a genome is isolated long enough it starts to diverge, it is not unreasonable to think that since we can do it in the lab, it can occur under natural conditions.

THIS is OBSERVED; it is cold, hard, scientific fact. It is merely an educated GUESS and can never be anything else that evolution on the scale of one-celled thingys to man happened.

Um, that's redundant. Science is NEVER more than an educated guess based on observable data that has been tested and retested.

What you're saying is that the scientific theory is just a scientific theory. A tautology. A philosophical argument is just a philosophical argument.

Many things, as you said, cannot be directly observed. However, things like evolution are NOT by ANY means on the same level as most other scientific fields. In evolution, we are either looking at the results of processes that occurred in the PAST (e.g., fossils) or we are looking at things in the present and EXTRAPOLATING backwards - so far backwards that any mathmetician would have nightmares about it!

That's where I have to say you are categorically wrong. Evolution is the cornerstone of current biology, and is as well accepted in scienctific circles as say theories about electromagnetic phenomena and gravitation. In fact, probably BETTER, since scientists are still fiddling about with Einstien's contributions and currently trying to assimulate scads of new observations from particle accelrators and long range scanning of the cosmos.

Evolution is so well accepted that it's even starting to have an impact on other fields, like theories about how stars and even new universes form.

It's so simple - all I ever fight for in this thread is an acknowledgement that evolution MAY NOT have happened - that we may NOT have been the product of chance and natural processes.

Pffft. Is that ALL?! Sure I'll go ahead and give it a nod. It's POSSIBLE that it didn't happen. But not bloody likely. It's about as possible that fairys are going to fly out my butt.

As for the idea of whether or not it was chance and random process or not, what makes you think that evolution has absolutely, anything, ANYTHING, to do with that?

I'm tempted to rave almost. You are mixing your apples and oranges again and then complaining that they taste funny!

The theory of evolution starts (when people have the guts to acknowledge it) from a stacked deck (i.e., that the universe "somehow" came to be in such a way that life could start from non-life) - talk about faith! Then it moves on by adopting another faith-based tenet - that the changes were driven entirely by chance and natural causes. Then it looks for evidence to support this, and since it only has second or third hand evidence (things in the past or extrapolations), it is not too hard to manufacture ways to support the theory that match the data.

No WONDER you keep getting confused about T.o.E. You keep insisting that there's a whole load of crap that isn't in there.

The ONLY thing you got correct was natural causes, as in naturally occuring mutations and death. I assume you think death is a natural enough cause, since it's based on entropy and lost energy. Death makes it hard to breed. Naturally.

imposed on top of the data, with the underlying assumption that the process is entirely naturalistic.

I have a news flash. Even if such processes were set up before the universe by a bunch of time travelling dwarves, they would be naturalistic, since they are part and parcel of the universe.

What they are not is super-natural. No guiding hand ripped open the fabric of space and dinked in a few code changes. And EVEN if that happened, it STILL isn't scientific because there's no way to test for such a thing.

Well, I'm very sorry, but that doesn't somehow let them off the hook. Their theory continues to be unproven, and unproveable. It's a very nice theory - but it's unproven and unproveable.

And that is important.. how? You can't even PROVE that you exist! I think that pretty much lets them off the hook, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

[Blackheart]

"And something that I hope you can agree with me on - just because there is a lot of time, doesn't mean ANYTHING can happen! "

Umm.. actually, given infinity, and an infinite amount of time, I'm going to actually hazard a guess and say that EVERYTHING has ALREADY happened. The whole thing about infinity though is that the chance of you actually PERSONALLY running into any of those occurences is vanishingly small. So no, I can't agree.

Somewhere out there, there is an entire planet where nubile beautiful naked women worship me as their god...

Curse infinity I say! curse it!

Given that, life in 12-13 billion years is a cinch!

[me9996]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And a request to the evolutionists - please realize that I'm outnumbered, as I said, and it's impossible for me to get to everyone's questions/comments, as I probably have 10 times more questions directed to me than any other person has directed to them. So please don't do me the discourtesy of claiming that I'm ignoring your post or don't have an answer if I haven't responded. If you politely keep bringing a point to my attention, eventually I'll respond, but to be realistic, I'll have to pick and choose what and to whom I respond to.

There are more creationists than you know(Just see my tread on chickens and eggs)

Any way, we're right!

(Note: If evalution was true how would you explain inishal life?)