Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Adaptation
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 115 (320972)
06-12-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 10:05 PM


Yeah, pretty much trying to please both sides. But it doesn't work that way. If one is right then the other is wrong.
Do you find spreading falsehoods to be "standing tall for the truth"? IF one side is right, then it doesn't need to misrepresent the other to show the truth eh?
You didn't answer the question about truths vs spreading falsehoods.
You also have a logical fallacy above -- they can both be wrong, thus showing ONE to be wrong does not make the OTHER right.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 10:05 PM Crue Knight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 8:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 115 (321582)
06-14-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
06-12-2006 10:19 PM


You didn't answer the question about truths vs spreading falsehoods.
You also have a logical fallacy above -- they can both be wrong, thus showing ONE to be wrong does not make the OTHER right.
Enjoy.
We (cretionists) do not believe this is spreading falsehoods. As a matter of fact we think you (evolutionists) are. Thats what this forum is about, isnt it?
Yes I know just because one is proven wrong then the other isn't right. But I meant if one (Evolution or creation) is right then the other is wrong. (has to be in this case)

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2006 10:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 06-14-2006 8:47 PM Crue Knight has not replied
 Message 94 by jar, posted 06-14-2006 8:59 PM Crue Knight has not replied
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2006 9:41 PM Crue Knight has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2597 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 93 of 115 (321598)
06-14-2006 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 8:00 PM


you're right. If one is right, the other is wrong. It just so happens that it's creationism that's wrong, and by mislabelling and misrepresenting scientists you are spreading falsehoods. So stop it.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 8:00 PM Crue Knight has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 94 of 115 (321603)
06-14-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 8:00 PM


We (cretionists) do not believe this is spreading falsehoods.
First, it is only some Biblical Creationists who believe that. Most of us have absoloutely no problem with either Evolution which is Fact, the Theory of Evolution which is the best explanation of the fact of Evolution, or the fact that the earth is old and the universe even older.
We know that you don't think you are spreading falsehoods but you are. Worse you are deliberately embracing scientific ignorance and transmiting such ignorance to our children.
Yes I know just because one is proven wrong then the other isn't right. But I meant if one (Evolution or creation) is right then the other is wrong. (has to be in this case)
Again, only true for the Biblical Creationists who worship the Bible instead of God. I would describe myself as a Christian creationist and have no problem understanding that so far the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have of how GOD did it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 8:00 PM Crue Knight has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 95 of 115 (321614)
06-14-2006 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 8:00 PM


lies and misrepresentations ok with creation?
We (cretionists) do not believe this is spreading falsehoods.
Unfortunately truth and falsehood are not dependant on the opinion of creationists, or evolutionists, or any other point of view, but on the facts.
As a matter of fact we think you (evolutionists) are. Thats what this forum is about, isnt it?
No, it's not about what you think but about how valid your argument is.
Thank you for admitting that you really don't care about the truth, that you don't really care about the facts, that you don't really care about knowledge, that you don't really care about checking the validity of your arguments.
All you are interested is in being comfortable.
You've just said that any and every lie is justified for a creationist to use. Because you think the "other side" is doing it has no justification for it. That's another logical fallacy btw.
But I meant if one (Evolution or creation) is right then the other is wrong. (has to be in this case)
Still a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy. There are {thousands to billions} of interpretations of creation not in conflict with evolution and that would not be contradicted by it.
Evolution is the change in species over time, it does not talk about where life first came from or about the preconditions of life being arranged in a grand cosmic scheme.
So let's be honest, it is not about {two} viewpoints, it is about {thousands to billions} of viewpoints where one is at odds with all the others. One that does not care about the truth and the honest representation of facts but depends more on ignorance than anything else.
And that what you want is to be comfortable in ignorance -- don't bother checking the facts or worry about getting the science right or even trying to understand the theories.
I have nothing positive to say about this kind of position, this attitude.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added line

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 8:00 PM Crue Knight has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 8:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 115 (321766)
06-15-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
06-14-2006 9:41 PM


Re: lies and misrepresentations ok with creation?
Hi, new guy here, I'll jump around a little here, I just browsed some of the posts and am making a broad reply.
I have been on countless forums like this one and I have found one constant. Both evo/cre seem to forget that they both stand on theories.
I am a creationist who rejects religion and has certain issues with evolution, although I do not think it is impossible. I also fail to see how evolution threatens creationists.
I have also noticed that evolutionists, in assuming evolution is fact, tend to confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is a necessary step in evolution, borrowed by evolutionists.
Adaptation is fact, evolution is theory. There is a solid line between the two. They are different. Adaptation varies a species according to it's needs/environment. Evolution is the journey/process from one animal to another.
Creationists tend to rely heavily on word of mouth and not fact. If a "christians" pastor, for example, tells them such and such happened and gives a biblical scripture to support it, (there is one for everything, although they tend to contradict other scriptures because they are usually taken out of context), then they hit the net preaching it as gospel and expecting science to support them.
All creationalism aside though, I would have no problem accepting evolution if it was proven. It in no way refutes a Creator. I would however, like to get some opinions on my two fold problem with macro evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2006 9:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 06-15-2006 11:03 AM tdcanam has replied
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2006 11:30 PM tdcanam has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 97 of 115 (321820)
06-15-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 8:41 AM


Welcome aboard, tdcanam
Welcome to EvC tdcanam.
I have a comment or two on your post.
I have little argument with what you post though I am not a believer. You'll find others in total agreement with you here too.
Adaptation is fact, evolution is theory. There is a solid line between the two. They are different. Adaptation varies a species according to it's needs/environment. Evolution is the journey/process from one animal to another.
You are right that mutations coupled with selection is a fact. It is also evolution. That is the basic definition of evolution.
"Evolution" is also a short form for "theory of evolution" (ToE). The facts that are explained by the ToE and the theory explaning them are indeed different.
The variations within a species are called by some biologists "microevolution". That is, all the changes and selected changes that end up sticking in the species (adaptations) that stay within a species are microevolution.
Once a change causes a split in a population so they can no (or choose not to) longer interbreed (for whatever reason) then the evolutionary processes have produced a new species. Biologists understand that this speciation process (or macroevolution) does require some circumstances of a special nature to allow the population to split. Once the split has occured then further adaptations can force the populations further and further apart.
All creationalism aside though, I would have no problem accepting evolution if it was proven. It in no way refutes a Creator.
I and many non-believers agree with you that it in no way refutes a Creator and, of course, the majority of Christians world wide agree with both you acceptance of evolution (though they may accept all of it) and beliefs.
I would however, like to get some opinions on my two fold problem with macro evolution.
Above, I have defined macro-evolution as it is used in biology. Do you have a different defintion? [/qs]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 8:41 AM tdcanam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 11:44 AM NosyNed has replied

  
tdcanam
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 115 (321836)
06-15-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by NosyNed
06-15-2006 11:03 AM


Re: Welcome aboard, tdcanam
Thanks mate!
quote:
You are right that mutations coupled with selection is a fact. It is also evolution. That is the basic definition of evolution.
I see your point. Still, I have reservations about referring to a fact using the heading of a theory. The basic definition of the ToE is adaptation. But the definition of adaptation has nothing to do with evolution. This is because adaptation is a proven scientific fact, while evolution,(sort of)like creationism, is still a theory.
quote:
The variations within a species are called by some biologists "microevolution". That is, all the changes and selected changes that end up sticking in the species (adaptations) that stay within a species are microevolution.
Again, microevolution, although easier to swallow that macro evolution, still is only a way to tie in a fact (adaptation), to a theory (evolution). ToE is borrowing a proven fact because it is essensial to ToE.
My beef with referring to adaptation as microevolution is that it is conditioning people to accept evolution for a fact as the word we are trying to replace (adaptation) is a fact.
We really can't replace the word adaptation, which is a fact, with macro, micro or just plain evolution, which is a theory.
I think you can see my point here.
quote:
Above, I have defined macro-evolution as it is used in biology. Do you have a different defintion?
Not a different definition. I just posted a new thread in the "intelligent design" section of this forum entitled "Codes, Evolution, Intelligent Design". This Will explain the first part of my two fold problem with macro evolution.
Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 06-15-2006 11:03 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 06-15-2006 12:14 PM tdcanam has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 99 of 115 (321855)
06-15-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 11:44 AM


What is a theory
We should watch that we don't get too far off topic here so I hope we can clear up the definition of a theory quickly.
I will use a different are of science to illustrate the point.
We know that "gravity" (whatever it is) is a fact. That is there is some attraction between massive objects.
Newton's devised a theory of gravity some centuries ago. It wasn't as interesting as modern theories go because it was the early days of science. He really only codified his observations and made some implicit (but unrecognized to him) assumptions about the nature of space and time. His theory gives us the inverse square law and works with a very high degree of precision.
His theory of gravitation gives us an early explanation for gravity. Thus the fact of gravity is explaned by the theory.
However, it turned out there were some descrepancies between Newton's theory of gravitation and actual observations. In other words it appeared that it might be "wrong" in someways. It turns out while being a very good description in a limited range of circumstances it needed to be tweaked and given a hugely different underlying picture of the universe.
Enter Einstein and his theory of general theory of relativity. That is the name but it is his new theory of gravity. It works better than Newton's over a wide range of conditions. It also makes explict some statments about the nature of space/time. The picture of spacetime is enormously different from Newton's implicit picture.
This is the best theory of gravity we have todate. There are reasons to think it is not perfect either. It is clearly correct over a very, very wide range of circumstance but it doesn't handle everything.
The fact of evolution is observed in both what living things do today (we see macro-evolution at the species and even higher levels today) and it is observed in the record of life on the planet over the last 3 to 4 billion years. This is the fact that needs to be explained.
The theory of evolution is the explanation for both how life produced the pattern we see over 3 billion years and what we see happening today.
Any comment on the DNA code you talk about would be off topic here.
However, it also has nothing to do with evolutionary explanations in any case. Evolution (as we are using the term here) refers to biological evolution -- that is, the evolution of living things. Anything to do with how the first living thing arose is not biological evolution it is chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 11:44 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 115 (322075)
06-15-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by tdcanam
06-15-2006 8:41 AM


theories and concepts.
Welcome to the fray tdcanam.
I'm going to take issue with a different thing than ned, as I think he has covered the differences in the facts of evolution aspects that have been observed, other than to say that observed speciation divisions are more than just adaptation.
Both evo/cre seem to forget that they both stand on theories.
For this to be so, there has to be a {scientific = testable, refinable} theory somewhere in the pile of concepts for "creationism"
If creationism is not held to this standard then saying that they are "both theories" is like saying that a toy car and a toyota car are "both cars" because they both have "toy" in them.
Evolution theory is scientific, it is testable, it is refinable as more information becomes available - and there have been several instances of this.
A concept, and idea, a hypothesis, is NOT a scientific theory until it can be tested and refined.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by tdcanam, posted 06-15-2006 8:41 AM tdcanam has not replied

  
Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 115 (323652)
06-19-2006 11:43 PM


Ok let me just say, I believe in the biblical creation. But, evolution is no way part off the bible. I may even disagree in many creationists so dont say what other creationists say because I have my own belief. I believe the earth is 13,000 yrs old (11,013 BC to be exact), and the universe was created in 7 days by the word of God.
And that's what this forum is about, debating on the two topics, so dont just say you're right and we're wrong. That will go absolutley nowhere. Because in a few years, 2011, the Bible tells us the Lord will most likely return and the world will end. Then will you see the Bible is the word of God.
Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic warning!
Edited by Crue Knight, : Erasing AdminNosy's INSULTS when he edited my post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by kuresu, posted 06-20-2006 5:07 PM Crue Knight has not replied
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2006 9:50 PM Crue Knight has not replied
 Message 104 by Damouse, posted 06-21-2006 12:29 PM Crue Knight has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2597 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 102 of 115 (324000)
06-20-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Crue Knight
06-19-2006 11:43 PM


Not to draw this further off topic, but wasn't it the Mayan calendar that predicts the end of the world in 2012?
And everyone has been preaching doomsday for ages--and we've never had one, so . . .

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Crue Knight, posted 06-19-2006 11:43 PM Crue Knight has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 115 (324130)
06-20-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Crue Knight
06-19-2006 11:43 PM


I believe the earth is 13,000 yrs old (11,013 BC to be exact), ...
Let's take that to dates confirmed with dendrochronology on the {Age Correlations, step by step} thread (click)
Then we can move back to the topic here:
Message 1
Evolution is/has been about natural selection, right?
I've heard all sorts of theories about adaptation, but haven't found them all in one place.
as it applies to
But, evolution is no way part off the bible.
Is something not mentioned in the bible a contradiction of it? We have gradual change in species over time, observed on many levels, in many places, some resulting in breeding separation between daughter populations -- speciation -- and I am not aware of anything that says this cannot be so. I am also not a scholar on what is or is not included, so perhaps someone who is could tell me where this is said?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Crue Knight, posted 06-19-2006 11:43 PM Crue Knight has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 104 of 115 (324396)
06-21-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Crue Knight
06-19-2006 11:43 PM


Heh
Ok let me just say, I believe in the biblical creation. But, evolution is no way part off the bible. I may even disagree in many creationists so dont say what other creationists say because I have my own belief. I believe the earth is 13,000 yrs old (11,013 BC to be exact), and the universe was created in 7 days by the word of God.
And that's what this forum is about, debating on the two topics, so dont just say you're right and we're wrong. That will go absolutley nowhere. Because in a few years, 2011, the Bible tells us the Lord will most likely return and the world will end. Then will you see the Bible is the word of God.
Went on vacation for a while, and i come back and find quite an argument. Thanks for the thoughts, did have an DNA theory, but have to look it up. This is where the on-topicness ends.
the Earth is 11,013 years old? nice number. How are fossils that are older then that explained? or did god create the fossils there, trying to trick us? Light that we see from other solar systems and other galexies has been in-transit for millions of years, did god create that to fool us too?
When the world ends, god will destroy everything, the earth and the billions of light-years of unused space just there with no purpose, as anything more then 13000 light years away could not be seen anyway?
Sigh. Quite a thoery. The Debate is indeed wether you are wrong and we are right, but see, we have every privlage to do that. We can tell you you wrong wrong wrong, simple because this is a debate, and you have brought something to the table. I like to call it hot air, based on ... oh yes, absolutly nothing but the words of men from thousands of years ago at such a degree of hearsay that its a wonder people read it for truth, let alone believe it.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Crue Knight, posted 06-19-2006 11:43 PM Crue Knight has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Crue Knight, posted 06-26-2006 9:25 PM Damouse has not replied

  
Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 115 (326651)
06-26-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Damouse
06-21-2006 12:29 PM


Re: Heh
the Earth is 11,013 years old? nice number. How are fossils that are older then that explained? or did god create the fossils there, trying to trick us? Light that we see from other solar systems and other galexies has been in-transit for millions of years, did god create that to fool us too?
When the world ends, god will destroy everything, the earth and the billions of light-years of unused space just there with no purpose, as anything more then 13000 light years away could not be seen anyway?
Sigh. Quite a thoery. The Debate is indeed wether you are wrong and we are right, but see, we have every privlage to do that. We can tell you you wrong wrong wrong, simple because this is a debate, and you have brought something to the table. I like to call it hot air, based on ... oh yes, absolutly nothing but the words of men from thousands of years ago at such a degree of hearsay that its a wonder people read it for truth, let alone believe it.
Everything you asked cannot be explained like 1, 2, 3.
If you read other Creationists post or maybe this link, http://www.timehasanend.org/..._time_has_an_end_ch05.html#08
, it'll explain why dating methods used today gives us what we think as old fossils. How can you be sure they work anyway? Were you there to witness the fossil decaying for a long time? Why is it that when we dig a certain depth, then there is nothing but sedimentary rock?
And light from other planets millions-billions of light years away could be seen because God made this universe mature, just as the first human, Adam was mature.
You should know better we believe the Bible was inspired by God.
BTW, weren't you in the Library at HeavenGames? I reconize your name.

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Damouse, posted 06-21-2006 12:29 PM Damouse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2006 9:33 PM Crue Knight has not replied
 Message 108 by AdminJar, posted 06-26-2006 9:42 PM Crue Knight has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024