Evolution And My Job

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1304960973' post='2239148']
This jerk wants to make money and be famous.
[/quote]
He's not doing a very good job. I've never even heard of him.

[MithLuin]

Correct. If you scroll up to my post on sexual differentiation, you'll see that birds and mammals are completely separate...but that both have similar relatives among the reptiles.

Mammals are XX for female and XY for male. Birds are ZW for female and ZZ for male. In other words, if you have two of the same sex chromosomes, you are a female if you are a mammal, but a male if you are a bird. Pretty significant.

There are groups of reptiles that are XX/XY, and other groups of reptiles that are ZW/ZZ (such as snakes). (And other groups of reptiles for which sex is not determined by chromosomes, even if they have them.)


Until we get more of the DNA sequenced, the actual relationships are a bit up in the air. [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14212-bird-evolutionary-tree-given-a-shake-by-dna-study.html]This[/url] 2008 [url=http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2008/06/early_birds_shake_up_avian_tre.php]study[/url] threw out a lot of curveballs, and likely some of them are simply wrong, due to limited data analyzed. Still, it was a lot more data than had been analyzed before, so...it's where we are at the moment. Birds are from the crocodilian branch of the reptiles which means, yes, they are related to dinosaurs.

[kafka]

alright thanks.

[xSilverPhinx]

I was going to wait for you to post part three and then jumble my response but here goes anyways:

[quote]I have read that wikilink before, I'd actually read it before we had this conversation. [b][u]I agree that Sting Rays would not develop limbs [i]in the life of a single stingray[/i], I was more just trying to throw out a hypothetical as to what it would take for such to take place. [/u][/b]Changes such as going from salt water to fresh water are minor changes amongst species. Those are simple to account for, but the macro evolutionary changes are not simple and are not well accounted for.[/quote]

Wait...what?

Here you're basically saying that macroevolution can only happen through a Lamarckian process even when you know that it's been proven inadequate and false a long time ago? And since Lamarckism (which nobody expects to happen) doesn't happen, then macroevolution through natural selection is false? If you're going to criticise the theory, you have to show why it's wrong, not attack a strawman.

I personally think that dwelling on hypothetical speculation on how stingrays should develop are pointless, just because they live next to a beach, or they hypothetically could live in the air and fly. There's no linear line to evolution as if there's an order to follow of intrinsically superior evolved forms, just those better adapted to their environments and the niches they occupy. Just like in that film "Evolution, which made me cringe, in which an alien life form evolved following slight variations of what happened on earth, with ape-like creatures being a culmination, in a non dynamic environment. A stingray doesn't have to evolve wings or feathers or whatever, just as sharks being closely linked to a very primitive group of fish didn't have to change if they fit and survive well in their environment.

Also, it looks like you're expecting 'jumps' which comprise of changes accumulated within many generation in a few. We will not observe the changes that a small rat-like creature whose forelegs turned into bat wings in the life of a single generation or two.

I'm going to use the [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html"]whale[/url] example as one of macroevolutionary change based on environment, because based on the fossil record, going from something that resembled a hoofed wolf to something that more closely resembles a fish (anatomically) is macroevolutionary change based on microevolutionary change spanning through millions of years and generations.

[img]http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/whale-fossils.jpg[/img]

[img]http://science.kennesaw.edu/%7Ejdirnber/Bio2108/Lecture/LecEvolution/whaleFossils.gif[/img]

If you compare pakicetus with the modern odontocetes and mysticetes that's macroevolution (microevolution, speciation and other details such as evo-devo), and the great thing is, the two modern whale groups still carry their genetic history which is compatible with this picture.

Also, it's interesting to note that land dwelling mammals can evolve structures that a similar to those of a fish (because it's a structure that works well for it's environment) independenty. The difference between modern whales and their land dwelling ancestor is clearly a case of macro evolution. It even explains why they still have lungs and breathe air, when if they were "created" for water, wouldn't it make more sense to have gills?

Microevolutionarily, they're way more distant from their gilled ancestors (fish) than their lunged ones and it was probably "easier" to have developed their lungs further rather re evolve gills (which they most probably have the genetic potential for).

And really the problem with fossils is that it is not a common occurance, remains can't just fossilise just anywhere, which is why it's not what's considered to be the most important evidence Besides, there are obvious problems with basing a theory on just morphology. It supports the case, but what really makes the case is DNA and molecular biology. [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"]Here's[/url] a good site, I don't know if you've looked into it though.

I'm going to have to ask, what exactly do you consider to be [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution"]macroevolution[/url] specifically? Is it two animals of one species giving birth to another of another species? A rat sprouting another set of limbs for wings? Do you consider the elongation of the giraffe's neck to be macroevolution? Because this is going to be pointless if we're not walking on the same wavelength here.
You said yourself that you accept microevolution...but what about when a group of animals because genetically isolated from eachother (speciation) and microevolution continues to occur? What do you call that?

Also, it's worth mentioning again that not all the details are fully known. Evolution is a fact but as for [i]how[/i] exactly...

[quote]
I have read those links too and done extensive reading from those resources but also others too. Allow me to first response to the last question, and the 92% figure. I'm aware of the fused chromosome research and the 92% figure. Actually from what I have read scientists like Richard Dawkins put it closer to 98% but lets not allow a few percentage points to hinder our discussion. First this figure of 98% is slightly tainted in that it doesn't give the full picture and misleads the people slightly. It's true that we do have much in common with apes but it's much more complicated then evolutionists would like us to believe.[/quote]

Yeah I came across a 92%, a 94% and a 98% but don't remember which. I think Dawkins himself corrected his figure from 98% to more like 94%...


[quote]Specific examples of these differences include:

[list][*]Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.[/list][b]Not just "believe", it's been found. It's one more observation supporting common ancestry with other apes.[/b]
[list][*]At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.[sup]7[/sup][/list][b]How does this conflict with divergent evolution? [/b]
[list][*]While 18 pairs of chromosomes are 'virtually identical', chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being 'remodeled.'[sup]5[/sup] In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of 'being remodeled' as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.[/list][b]Again,[/b] [b]how does this conflict with divergent evolution?
[/b][list][*]The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.[sup]1[/sup][/list][b]I don't have access to the [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9745049"]article [/url]itself...but forgive me for not buying into how that sentence was worded since this whole paragraph you pasted is from a creation website...[/b]
[list][*]Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed 'large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.' They found a number of regions that 'might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.'[sup]3[/sup][/list][b]Insertions where? How is it not compatible with microevolutionary change after branching off (which as far as I know, do not have special places reserved for them in specific areas of the genome)? Is it in the so called "junk-DNA"? [/b]

These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.[/quote]

[quote]This is a good question that you ask about what it would take to prove that humans and apes are part of a larger family and have a common ancestor. It would takes a much more conclusive fossil record for starters. Second Darwin's Theory must be much more clear then it is. I don't believe that it is that clear and where it is clear, the fossil record has severe gaps. This isn't to say that it should be said to be "false" and should be discarded, but rather it should remain on the table with all the other theories as unproved. If we only have 1% or less of scientific data, and we make predictions and insist that it's a "settled issue", that's like playing pictionary and only allowing the person to draw for 1 second and insisting that we know what the person was going to draw without a clue to point us in the proper direction. We need to allow the canvas to be drawn upon before was assume that we know what he/she was going to draw, or in this situation what conclusions science was going to draw. It's always easy to persuade ourselves that we have understood something when we haven't understood a thing.

The question is not weather we can retroactively explain an adaptation but weather we got that adaptation from general principals of science. This is where Darwinian Theory is inadequate but it's a requirement of science - historically. If we're talking about astrophysics and we have a dynamical theory. We can put it to the test but simulating the evolution of the universe, we can determine where the evidence agrees with the theory and where it does not. This is virtually impossible for biology, as far as Darwin's Theory is concerned.

Now onto the more technical part about the fossil record. The late reptilian transitional fossils are well documented, that is without a doubt [sorry creationists] but the major adaptations/transitional fossils are incomplete. It's so imcomplete that it doesn't come close to what Darwinian Theory requires. If you read about condon paleontology, in the large variety of Dr. Robert L. Carroll's [who is will respected] books, he says, "major transitional fossils are missing from the fossil record", just as many before him have said. If you examine insects, there is almost no fossil documentation. The only documentation is between ants and wasps, according to Eugenie Scott herself.

Thou it's not what the media would like us to believe, neither would most college professors, what Darwinian Theory requires is a wide range of major trasitional and/or intermediate species in the fossil record for every significant morphological or physiological feature in a modern species. We currently do not have them, maybe we will some day. That's why I say not to take the theory off the table.[/quote]

I just think that you're looking too much at the fossil record and ignoring the rest, which would've been a bigger issue in Darwin's day but today with our ability to decode the genome and study genomic history among other things, fossils are not on what the theory stands. Darwinism has been built into something much more comprehensive and even relies on other independent fields such as geology to strengthen its case. How would you explain, for instance, a variety of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial"]marsupials[/url] living on an island which has been separated from potentially incoming genes a long time ago which led to a group with a wide variety of body forms (from kangaroos to koalas to things that look like little bears to things that look like squirrels to things that look like lions)? Why would those be living only in Australia and near islands? Just as geology has made the picture more complete, genetics has as well. The fossil record is not as important today as creationists (who typically don't know a thing about Darwinism anyways [sorry creationists!] want to say it is.

Anyways a theory is an explanatory model of our observations. It hasn't actually be [i]proven[/i] that the earth goes around the sun, if you want actual empirical evidence, but so far has there been a reason not to accept that it does based on what we do know?

I ran into another analogy the other day in which it's like at first people said that the Earth was flat. Conflicting data falsified that and then people said that the Earth was spherical. Again, that was torn down. Now to the best of our knowledge the Earth is slightly flattened on it's poles and with a bulge at the equator because it spins, but with the amount of a data we have nobody will say that it's a cube. Few have been truly turned upside down such as the flat earth hypothesis and for the past 150 years or so evolutionary theory is a the most comprehensive theory we have which explains [i]all[/i] the facts we know (which obviously isn't everything, nobody's claiming to know everything), and that includes common descent.

But I agree that darwinism is not dogma so it is possible that one day something will turn up that might turn it upside-down.

Creationism is just ridiculous, I don't even know why literalist fundamentalist such as those who push for it to be taught in science classes think they're being taken seriously. Besides having loads of evidence stacked against them, they don't actually make a coherent picture of what happened.

Secondly, like I said before theism is not incompatible with science. Science is incompatible with the literal biblical account. But theism is not science, so ID isn't either .

[quote]No problem, going back before Darwinian Theory [or any of the other evolutionary thoughts] were even a thought in somebodies mind and everyone believed in a higher power, or was agnostic, scientific theory was not prevented. I agree that people like Galileo were hindered by some religious people [in his situation, Catholics ironically] but it wasn't affective and didn't hinder him from presenting the scientific evidence. Galileo was a believer in G-d but he used that as motivation for his discoveries, as did Muslims that were doing blood transfusions during the Golden Age, and Einstein made similar statements that his belief in G-d actually encouraged him in his scientific discoveries.

In the modern realm, people like Dr. Robert Kaita, who is a Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, which has furthered science in that particular field, ascibe to intelligent design but also are pushing forward with science.

Intelligent design doesn't do that, rather it's the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence. Intelligent "designers", do not necessarily believe in G-d, and credit him as "the designer", thou many do chose to do so. However, intelligent design only requires a minimal scientific commitment to the POSSIBILITY of detecting intelligent causation. What this means is that the possibility remains open to the idea that some form of intelligence guided that which we see before us. Have you ever seen the film, "Men in Black"? It's an entertaining film, I liked it. Do you remember the end of the film? [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyzIau5dBao"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LyzIau5dBao[/url] That would be considered intelligent design. It's not what I personally believe, but intelligent design leaves open that possibility.

Additionally a hypothetical could be, lets say that like Men in Black, our world is just a spec in the world of a different living being. Lets say that that particular living being, everyday eats a meal and discards the uneaten portions like the rest of the people in our world. Now lets say that the discarded portions bread bacteria [as does in our world] and that creates a form of life that gives rise to other forms of life. That is a form of intelligence that gives rise to a lessor form of intelligence too.
[/quote]

Okay...so just because some good scientists are believers that means they proved god and intelligent design? And how do you know that the design is really intelligent in the first place?

Mendel (the father of genetics, as he's referred to) was a monk, but that doesn't scientifically link genes to god, he, like other theistic or deistic scientists didn't set out to prove god through their science. Ken Miller is a catholic, but he is against Intelligent Design exactly because it tries to add gods to the imagined or created gaps through taking a situation and making [i]it look like it's impossible and can only be explained through a miracle.[/i] Science can't identify a miracle it it were one and that's the major point here.

Also, by what some people mean when they say 'god' can be quite different from yours. Einstein for instance did not believe in a personal god, but he was not an atheist either, though his god did cause he to make mistakes when his observations conflicted with what he felt reality should be ("God does not play dice"). Some people (myself included) would say that 'god' is in the creative forces that shape our existence, but those forces are mindless. It's definitely not a 'god' which has personality, characteristics, demands worship and submission, or anything else. It just is.

You'll have to first prove that there actually is intelligence and especially differentiate it from what is not intelligence (you can't know what an intelligently designed universe looks like if you don't know what a non intelligently designed universe looks like) to say that the universe is intelligently designed.

It's a good motivator for some people, and if it makes them better at what they do then all is well, but they're not proving their version of "god" through their experiments and observations.


I'll answer the rest later.

Edit: Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there are more than one lineages and that not all living things are descended from the same common ancestor. Does that prove evolution false?

Supposing if what Darwin said about there being only one ancestor isn't true (but only very very very much looks like it's true) does that prove a particular version of theism by default?

Edited May 9, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304975913' post='2239249']Here you're basically saying that macroevolution can only happen through a Lamarckian process even when you know that it's been proven inadequate and false a long time ago? And since Lamarckism (which nobody expects to happen) doesn't happen, then macroevolution through natural selection is false? If you're going to criticise the theory, you have to show why it's wrong, not attack a strawman.[/quote]

No that's not what I was saying.

[quote]I'm going to use the [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html"]whale[/url] example as one of macroevolutionary change based on environment, because based on the fossil record, going from something that resembled a hoofed wolf to something that more closely resembles a fish (anatomically) is macroevolutionary change based on microevolutionary change spanning through millions of years and generations.

[img]http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/whale-fossils.jpg[/img]

[img]http://science.kennesaw.edu/%7Ejdirnber/Bio2108/Lecture/LecEvolution/whaleFossils.gif[/img]

If you compare pakicetus with the modern odontocetes and mysticetes that's macroevolution (microevolution, speciation and other details such as evo-devo), and the great thing is, the two modern whale groups still carry their genetic history which is compatible with this picture.

Also, it's interesting to note that land dwelling mammals can evolve structures that a similar to those of a fish (because it's a structure that works well for it's environment) independenty. The difference between modern whales and their land dwelling ancestor is clearly a case of macro evolution. It even explains why they still have lungs and breathe air, when if they were "created" for water, wouldn't it make more sense to have gills?[/quote]

Well just because genetically these animals have much in common, even gentically, doesn't mean that they related as evolutionists would like to believe such. As for the lungs rather then gills, it serves a purpose does it not?

[quote]And really the problem with fossils is that it is not a common occurance, remains can't just fossilise just anywhere, which is why it's not what's considered to be the most important evidence Besides, there are obvious problems with basing a theory on just morphology. It supports the case, but what really makes the case is DNA and molecular biology. [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"]Here's[/url] a good site, I don't know if you've looked into it though.[/quote] We need not diminish the importance of fossils in the theory.

[quote]I just think that you're looking too much at the fossil record and ignoring the rest, which would've been a bigger issue in Darwin's day but today with our ability to decode the genome and study genomic history among other things, fossils are not on what the theory stands. Darwinism has been built into something much more comprehensive and even relies on other independent fields such as geology to strengthen its case. How would you explain, for instance, a variety of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial"]marsupials[/url] living on an island which has been separated from potentially incoming genes a long time ago which led to a group with a wide variety of body forms (from kangaroos to koalas to things that look like little bears to things that look like squirrels to things that look like lions)? Why would those be living only in Australia and near islands? Just as geology has made the picture more complete, genetics has as well. The fossil record is not as important today as creationists (who typically don't know a thing about Darwinism anyways [sorry creationists!] want to say it is.[/quote]

This is where we disagree, I do not think that I'm looking too much at the fossiil record because that is what darwinian theory requires by it's very nature. Darwin himself said that within 100 years, we should have an abundance of fossils that document major evolutionary changes, but we do not.

[quote]Anyways a theory is an explanatory model of our observations. It hasn't actually be [i]proven[/i] that the earth goes around the sun, if you want actual empirical evidence, but so far has there been a reason not to accept that it does based on what we do know?
[/quote] All what I'm asking, is what I mentioned in the above posts, that Darwinian theory be subjected to the same tests and require the same amount of evidence as other theories.

[quote]Secondly, like I said before theism is not incompatible with science. Science is incompatible with the literal biblical account. But theism is not science, so ID isn't either .
[/quote] The problem with this, as Dawkins says too, is that if you read Genesis chapter 1, it says, "G-d did this" and if G-d did not truly do that, then what do we say?

[quote]Okay...so just because some good scientists are believers that means they proved god and intelligent design? And how do you know that the design is really intelligent in the first place?
[/quote]

Well, I didn't say that it proved G-d or intelligent design, what I said is that intelligent design is not about hindering science, nor is it the lack of searching for scientific evidence to understand the origins of life, etc.

[quote]Mendel (the father of genetics, as he's referred to) was a monk, but that doesn't scientifically link genes to god, he, like other theistic or deistic scientists didn't set out to prove god through their science. Ken Miller is a catholic, but he is against Intelligent Design exactly because it tries to add gods to the imagined or created gaps through taking a situation and making [i]it look like it's impossible and can only be explained through a miracle.[/i] Science can't identify a miracle it it were one and that's the major point here.
[/quote]

You won't catch me defending Miller, that's for sure. I think that Miller wants to have his cake and eat it too. As for science can't identify miracles, I say that it depends on what miracles we're referencing. If there were no trees on earth and then G-d created a tree and made it grow, there is a certain level of scientific data that can be found. Richard Dawkins put it like this, "Am I sure that there is no spiritual realm, no and I'm for science that could further our understanding whatever field it may be but currently there is no evidence of such" He said this in his film about science vs alternative medicine. If it truly was G-d that created all that which is around us, there would be evidence of such, atleast to an extent. What is the purpose of saying, "The Bible is the Truth from G-d" and yet when we read it, it makes physical claims for which science may contradict? Do we say, "Science is right but also the Bible is right" and then try and reduce the Bible to the spiritual/miraculous realm, when it makes specific claims dealing in the modern world.

When G-d said in the Torah, "I created a flood that covered the entire earth", in which there is no evidence of, how can we say, "I believe in both", because they both are making claims dealing in the physical world that should be varifiable.


[quote]Edit: Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there are more than one lineages and that not all living things are descended from the same common ancestor. Does that prove evolution false?
[/quote]

That in and of itself no, but it would provide more information into the larger picture.

[quote]Supposing if what Darwin said about there being only one ancestor isn't true (but only very very very much looks like it's true) does that prove a particular version of theism by default?
[/quote] No, because the hypothesis given, as I have said, are based upon less then 1% of the picture. If two people were playing pictionary and the person drawing only got 1 second to draw and for whatever means, the individual that was guessing got the answer correct. Does that provide evidence that they knew? Probably not, it could have just been a lucky guess.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Evilution is a hoax perpetrated by atheistic eugenics nuts. The theory of evilution is just a theory and the so-called evidence for it is fabricated by liars. I believe in teh insane clown posse. We don't have to be high to look in the sky and know that's a miracle...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304981704' post='2239316']We need not diminish the importance of fossils in the theory.[/quote]

Okay, but we need not ignore molecular evidence too, especially since that is enough to give common descent [i]a lot[/i] of support. When you have the time, I really suggest you read what [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"]this site has to say on the subject[/url]. It can explain better than I can. It's a big site, but really worthwhile and it outlines the evidence for common descent and macroevolution using more than just fossils. It's not anti-god either.

[quote]This is where we disagree, I do not think that I'm looking too much at the fossiil record because that is what darwinian theory requires by it's very nature. Darwin himself said that within 100 years, we should have an abundance of fossils that document major evolutionary changes, but we do not.[/quote]

What do you think about the whale example?

[quote]Well just because genetically these animals have much in common, even gentically, doesn't mean that they related as evolutionists would like to believe such. As for the lungs rather then gills, it serves a purpose does it not?[/quote]

Well they don't base those calculation on just the percentage shared of course.

Yes, lungs serve a purpose, but why have a breathing apparatus specifically designed to extract oxygen from the air when you live solely in the water and all other water-dwellers have an apparatus specifically designed to extract oxygen from the water? Sure it serves a purpose, though I wouldn't use that as an example of intelligent design...I mean it's not like they evolved really well developed lungs because there's a struggle for oxygen under the water (which covers more than half the space on the planet)...

[quote]All what I'm asking, is what I mentioned in the above posts, that Darwinian theory be subjected to the same tests and require the same amount of evidence as other theories.[/quote]

It has been subjected to tests for the last 150 years, and hasn't been falsified yet.

[quote]The problem with this, as Dawkins says too, is that if you read Genesis chapter 1, it says, "G-d did this" and if G-d did not truly do that, then what do we say?

Well, I didn't say that it proved G-d or intelligent design, what I said is that intelligent design is not about hindering science, nor is it the lack of searching for scientific evidence to understand the origins of life, etc.

You won't catch me defending Miller, that's for sure. I think that Miller wants to have his cake and eat it too. As for science can't identify miracles, I say that it depends on what miracles we're referencing. If there were no trees on earth and then G-d created a tree and made it grow, there is a certain level of scientific data that can be found. Richard Dawkins put it like this, "Am I sure that there is no spiritual realm, no and I'm for science that could further our understanding whatever field it may be but currently there is no evidence of such" He said this in his film about science vs alternative medicine. If it truly was G-d that created all that which is around us, there would be evidence of such, atleast to an extent. [/quote]

I think Miller takes a different perspective on things. Evolution with common descent and a belief in an intelligent creator don't cancel eachother out.

I admire Dawkins, but he speaks for himself and he's voicing his opinion. If there really is a spiritual realm that is immaterial, it is beyond the reach of science, which is limited to the material realm. If science could detect the "spiritual", then it would be material and therefore according to some, not spiritual anymore. To me, that's moving the goalposts by saying that it's immaterial, but if there really is a spiritual realm, it will not be detected through science. Just saying.

I think what Dawkins means is that, and he has the history of mankind's attempts to understand the world to back up his position, is that what people do is they attributed to the spiritual realm explanations for natural occurrences that they didn't understand.

[quote]What is the purpose of saying, "The Bible is the Truth from G-d" and yet when we read it, it makes physical claims for which science may contradict? Do we say, "Science is right but also the Bible is right" and then try and reduce the Bible to the spiritual/miraculous realm, when it makes specific claims dealing in the modern world.

When G-d said in the Torah, "I created a flood that covered the entire earth", in which there is no evidence of, how can we say, "I believe in both", because they both are making claims dealing in the physical world that should be verifiable.[/quote]

Yeah...then you run into a problem. The way I see it, you can either accept that the bible is not [i]literally[/i] true due to whatever reason, that only parts of it are true and then use your intellectual abilities to try and figure out which ones, you could reject what evidence overwhelmingly (so far) points to in favour of the bible or that the bible got it wrong as a whole on natural/scientific matters.

But I think that a lot of it is down to interpretation. Some people see miracles in natural occurrences as well and take it as proof of divine intervention. Miller, I think would be one who probably sees every stage of evolution since the last common ancestor to be miraculous (I bring up Ken Miller because the the most prominent theistic evolutionist I can think of and not for any other special reason)

[quote]No, because the hypothesis given, as I have said, are based upon less then 1% of the picture. If two people were playing pictionary and the person drawing only got 1 second to draw and for whatever means, the individual that was guessing got the answer correct. Does that provide evidence that they knew? Probably not, it could have just been a lucky guess.
[/quote]

I get what you're saying here and you do have a valid point, but I would call it an informed guess in the case of those who research this for a living and have a lot of knowledge on the subject.

If one of the people is a literate adult and the other a kindergartener and the adult has only a few seconds to draw a word, the child would see scribbles and would lack the knowledge to guess correctly. If it were a game between two literate people, this would not be the case.

Edited May 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Laudate_Dominum]

xSilverPhinx, I get the feeling that you've recently read [i]The Greatest Show on Earth[/i] (based on your choice of examples). Allow me to refute Dawkins and all those evolution people for you:

[spoiler]
[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/evolution-treeofevil.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/LiarsClub.jpg[/IMG]

[spoiler]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Lulz/hippie.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/Creationist_car.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/Truth_fish.jpg[/IMG]

[spoiler]
Plenty more where that came from!

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/cat-vs-dog.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/variosity/dawkins.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Lulz/ipsofacto.jpg[/IMG]
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]

[xSilverPhinx]

@ RezaMikhaeil[b] [/b]

Just to add to the last point:

If there were other independent lineages found, that would be really exicting .

Edited May 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305000259' post='2239503']
xSilverPhinx, I get the feeling that you've recently read [i]The Greatest Show on Earth[/i] (based on your choice of examples). Allow me to refute Dawkins and all those evolution people for you:

[spoiler]
[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/evolution-treeofevil.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/LiarsClub.jpg[/img]

[spoiler]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Lulz/hippie.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/Creationist_car.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/Truth_fish.jpg[/img]

[spoiler]
Plenty more where that came from!

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/cat-vs-dog.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/variosity/dawkins.gif[/img]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Lulz/ipsofacto.jpg[/img]
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]
[/quote]


Are you serious?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305002338' post='2239519']
Are you serious?
[/quote]
Indubitably! I guess this means you've got nothing. Point for TRUTH.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm not going to let myself be baited by a creationist as it's definitely not worthwhile...

Are you [i]really [/i]serious?

If you are then...ok...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305003740' post='2239537']
I'm not going to let myself be baited by a creationist as it's definitely not worthwhile...

Are you [i]really [/i]serious?

If you are then...ok...
[/quote]
I doubt there's anything you could say that I don't already know. I've read Ken Miller, Dawkins, Coyne, Gould, Campbell & Reece, Futuyma's [i]Evolution[/i], [i]Molecular Biology of the Cell[/i], and a bunch of other stuff. Bring it. I am ready to defeat evilution here and now, in front of everyone.

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/13584_do_it_live_gallery3.jpg[/IMG]

[xSilverPhinx]

And win the Nobel prize (definitely a fitting prize for anyone who defeats evolutionary theory)?

Okay...I've been baited. Defeat it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305005359' post='2239543']
And win the Nobel prize (definitely a fitting prize for anyone who defeats evolutionary theory)?

Okay...I've been baited. Defeat it.
[/quote]
Round 1

1. The banana (proof of God's design)
2. Peanut butter (the atheist's nightmare! yes, I'm playing hardball)
3. The bombardier beetle (pwned)
4. The eye (randomly fell into place my a**)
5. No transitional forms (where's my crocoduck!?)
6. Donald Trump's hair (I went there)
7. If we supposedly evolved from monkeys how are monkeys still here? (derp)
8. THE MISSING LINK!
9. Piltdown man. Nuff said.
10. Dawkins is a jerk.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum