A common textbook definition of it is: Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
I thought I should retouch this after coming across another website I had heretofore been unaware of. He talks about the definition given by talkorigins of evolution, and makes precisely the same statement I did:
Talk.Origins is very hard to targetâ"a fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the âfact of evolutionâ(TM), these people will employ a definition of evolution [âoeBiological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over timeâ] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there.
I wish and hope you can understand this - that we don't disagree with that plain defintion - but that this definition does not necessarily lead to what talkorigins was designed to defend. I don't appreciate this kind of deception, not in the slightest. You may read the full article here.
I've had enough of this. Did you care to look at the links on mtDNA in that other thread?
And how many scientists in the field of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry have you convinced? About zero. You cannot even convince most mainstream Christian denominations.
Again, I don't care. I personally have not convinced any - however, there have been scientists and Christians numerous times pursuaded. Even if there weren't, I still base my opinions on what I understand (not desire) to be correct.
Just grabbing a few quick references...
You are mistaken if you think I'm going to go to my library and borrow or purchase any of these books. As for the talkorigins site, I might be willing to examine each of those in detail, but I really don't feel like doing that with you. Maybe another time
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the initial life form - it deals with life once it has formed. The area investigating initial life forms is referred to as abiogenesis.
A common copout. Of course the theory of evolution strictly refers to after the formation of life. However, the general phrase "evolution" refers to a number of realms besides biological evolution (even though this is not correct usage). If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the earth is in fact around 6000 years old, then the theory of evolution will be declared false. If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the first life that evolution requires could never have formed or come into existence, then evolution will be declared false. So even though evolution doesn't directly deal with these areas, it lies on that foundation without which it has no foothold. That is why it is a copout to ignore them. But in the phrase you were replying to, I was referring to the process of evolution not the initial formation of life.
ROTFL. I'm not really here to teach you biology. There are large complex undelying ideas in evolution, but there is also a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. Consider opposing data? Well, I've seen so many creationist whoppers that I have a hard time understanding how some of them can look at themselves in the mirror with the lies that they have told. Noah's ark, the speed of light, 2nd law of thermo, dinosaur/manprints, the Grand Canyon, basking shark/plesiosaur, blatent misquotes of various evolution supporters.....
You can stop laughing now. As I said to another once - I contend that the problem is not with the creationist arguments but instead with your biased misinterpretation of them. For example, many of the points in SciAm's 15 answers to creationist nonsense are based on misunderstand or misrepresentation of the creationist position (example, no creationist with the slightest bit of knowledge would argue against natural selection). But I don't have time to talk with you. I'm interested to see if you have realised your mistake with mtDNA after reading those other responses. I have read up on this issue a great deal, I have seen arguments for both creationists and evolutionists.
I know, I have something we can discuss - how about you cite for me one major evidence for evolution? Then we can talk about that. I prefer to deal with specifics, because there's no way to argue against a statement like "amazing amount of evidence in support of it".
Go ahead. But so far, you and your supporters have failed to convince a noticable number of scientists working in those areas.
And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the materialistic/atheistic bias of many/most of these scientists? No, of course not. Because while creationists are fairly accused of bias, it is unfair to accuse materialistic atheists of being biased against creationism.
Heck, I know a Christian biologist who is also an evolutionist. He's relatively high up in his work place. He believes evolution, but he hadn't even *heard* about the creationist arguments. So it's absolutely no surprise to
You think that I haven't looked into this at all don't you? You think that I've heard some people saying "we have overwhelming evidence that the earth is young" and left it at that?
I have been reading up on this issue for a long time.
No. New species arise from existing species. The only way that it wouldn't is if there was some sort of mechanism that would keep sufficient mutations from accumulating from happening - something that has never been found.
You are not going to fool me - this works the other way. Mutations have not been observed to gradually give rise to new species. The processes that evolution claim created life on earth have *never* been observed. You make it sound like these mutations are assuredly going to give rise to new species. In fact, you just have no understanding of genetics. These mutations change information, but they don't demonstrate the process by which the original simple single celled life could have possibly obtained more information to create more complex life forms. We simply don't observe it - and that is why it is unscientific to claim that it happened. Don't you see though - you have taken something that is observed, and extrapolated that into something we can't observe. That is unscientific.
Again regarding mtDNA I suggest you read my post here and then view the responses and replies by BCGlorfindel, perhaps that will make it clearer for you.
And ditch your elephant hurling - "This is a debate tactic known as âelephant hurlingâ(TM). This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions." (from AiG website). I'minterested in specifics, not generalities. Problems with geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology? I'd rather deal with them because I think they can be answered. Your general responses do nothing to pursuade me.
No, I'm sorry, you don't understand this at all. The long term application of this theory does not mean the change of simple single celled organisms->life we see today. Not by a long shot. And to say that that theory necessarily leads to that is entirely untrue. If that's the best you can come up with that's weak - you should be unsurprised that creationists have never given a definition of their theory akin to what you have provided: simply because we have no problem with what you just said. You simply described a theory that talks about mutations we see today.
The disagreance is whether those mutations lead to the simple organisms->today's life, and that is simply not covered by the theory you provided. We believe these mutations are insufficient to ever lead to what evolutionists claim.
As far as controversy, simply because many people accept evolution does not mean it is right - evolutionists are fond of quoting Galileo's experiences, so am I. Galileo was by far a minority view. I have no problem with considering something that is a minority view to be correct.
Now you need to provide for me the description of the testable theory that creationists disagree with - simple organisms->life today. The statement you gave does not describe that at all.
Something I should have picked up before:
Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.
What you are saying is that even though the true mutation rates did not fit with the fossil record, the ones that were invented based on the fossil record correlate with it better and so should be used. Or something else? It seems to me you are saying that "if something disagrees with what we believe it can't be true". I think you need to explain this more carefully, because right now it looks like you are willing to invent numbers to support evolution.
A common textbook definition of it is: Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
Bah, that's not evolution at all. I mean, it is and it isn't. The evolution I disagree with is the idea that all living things alive today could have originated from simple single celled live, over time evolving through inheritence to become what we see today. What you describe as evolution I have no problems with.
So give me the description of the theory that causes so much controversy.
I consider it the role of posters to demonstrate the incorrect or inaccurate nature of a post - definately not the role of mob moderation. We're not interested in whether someone *thinks* something is incorrect, but rather why it is incorrect.
Have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it... lacking (to use a polite description)?
Yes, I have - and I've found it not to be true. I have *never* found a slashdotter who yet understands the creationist position. And the biggest problem is that they all *think* they do when their posts display obvious fundamental misunderstandings.
Again, have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it... lacking (to use a polite description)?
That's still no reason to moderate it troll. Overrated....maybe, but certainly not troll.
Now, when I say they are not scientific, I mean that it does not meet any of the criteria needed to be a scientific theory - Explaining the evidence, making predictions that can be examined, and be falsifiable (you can devise tests that could possibly disprove it). For years, creationists have been asked for a scientific theory of creationism on the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins - and none has *ever* been posted.
Every time this has been posted I ask the person who seaid it to provide me first with the equivalent evolutionary theory, so I can produce or see if something of a similar nature can be made. Besides, creationism model isn't scientific in the true sense, but it does make a few predictions that can be proven right or wrong by the use of scientific methods. Evolution employs unscientific methods also, AFAIK. For example, has anyone ever observed the whale evolving from a land mammal? What is a scientific, repeatable, observable test to prove that?
And as far as using the Bible as evidence, I hope you realize that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and total falsehoods (example: The Great Worldwide Flood - there is overwhelming evidence that it never happened).
How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?
Now, your explanation of how the human race was created, well, it is amusing fiction. Of course, it completely contradicts all known fossil and genetic evidence. It's ironic when you talk about others having a misunderstanding of genetics when you post this stuff.
I wasn't presenting a scientific argument. I was demonstrating within the constraints of the Biblical explanation, how it is possible that these first children found partners. Besides, the problem with most fossil/genetic evidence is that it's based on evolutionary assumptions. For example, mtDNA was believed to prove show that mtDNA eve lived around 200,000 years ago. However, the rate of mutation of mtDNA was decided by evolutionary assumptions, ie "mtDNA eve should have lived around this long ago, so this is what the mutation rate should be". Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster, resulting in an mtDNA eve around 6,000 years ago. So I am skeptical that there is huge amounts of fossil and genetic evidence - I'm guessing, case by case, that these were all dated by evolutionary assumptions rather than blind tests...and there's other evidence that indicates a young earth.
This is just an urban myth. The truth is that part of a rib can be taken off and it will grow back if done right. Surgeons do this sometimes when they need some bone for an operation.
It is not expected for men to be missing a rib. Besides, it's rubbish anyway - just because Adam was missing a rib that didn't change his DNA, so his children should have still had the same number as he originally had. That's like saying if I lose my arm my children will also have only one arm.
This is the result of a misunderstanding of creationism.
And I wouldn't worry about you being marked as a troll. Evolutionists are almost never marked troll. I find however, no matter how rational or kind/non confrontational I make my pro-creationist posts they get modded troll. But I don't mind, people like my other posts enough that my karma will be impervious to their attacks!
Here is what happened. Adam and Eve were created man and woman, the first two humans. They had many children, sons and daughters. These sons and daughters married each other (if there was an official ceremony) and had children. These children were safe from the dangers of mutations since they were the offspring of flawless parents. That means there were no common recessive harmful mutations to share amongst each other. Incest was only outlawed much later (around 2000 years later I think) when mutations had become rife and the dangers were stronger. Then it wasn't restricted to cousins - in fact, amongst cousins I believe the danger is ~2% or something, but that could be wrong.
As for going over the hill, that is a load of crock - and the result of a misreading of the Bible (or perhaps imagining verses that aren't there), and a misunderstanding of genetics.
You can read our prices yourself, here for optus and here for Telstra. Though telstra costs more, it is the better choice for gamers, since they have http://games.telstra.com/gamearena where you can download many patches, demo's, etc that don't count towards your monthly limit. They also run a lot of game servers which also don't count towards the limit. They used to offer a lot of Linux iso's for download for free too, but they've pulled that:(.
But our prices really are bad - it looks like there's starting to be a lot of really good ADSL plans going around though, definately some potential.
No, probably not. After all, animals too were choked off at this point in history, with 2 of each kind and 7 of those that were considered clean (edible animals). So it doesn't explain it.
However, what could explain it is the habit for humans to commit genocide at times, and also to breed within the family. These have both occurred in large scales in the past. Families would stick together very strongly (tens, hundreds, thousands of people). They would sometimes wipe out entire family lines in a war. They would marry as exclusively as possible within families. Along with disease, etc, that cuts a population down. I'd see that as a better creationist explanation.
On a related note, mitochondrial DNA seems to indicate that our common mother (mitochondrial eve) existed ~6000 years ago, less than the 70,000 years proposed here. It was originally thought that mitochondrial eve existed ~200-250,000 years ago. However, new research in 1997 (off memory) indicated that mutations in mtDNA occurred far more rapidly than assumed (assumptions were based on evolutionary expectations for mitochondrial eve). This resulted in the new date. Take note: I've had many evolutionists come back and quote the original article saying "See! It says 200,000 years, not the 6,000 creationists quote. Just another example of creationist lies". However, they failed to look at the top of the article which was dated (Again, off memory) 1996, a year before the new research was discovered. I thought I'd mention that to save potential embarrasment.
A reference can be found here, though I used to refer to the article on creationscience.com - the author is slow to update (including the now outdated moon-dust argument) so I am putting less focus on that resource.
The problem with this is the similarity of the human method of design, the commonality of DNA, etc. Evolutionists use this as an argument of common ancestor, creationists use it as an argument of common designer. Either way, it eliminates the extra-terrestrial option, UNLESS the aliens too originated from earth (or all life on earth from them), but diverged at some point then rejoined.
I think that was the point though. When he said cut-n-paste I automatically read it as meaning an automated script, but going through a slow web interface. Still, maybe I'm giving too much justice to it. Or just not understanding:)
I'm not sure of what I think really. My gut feeling is that, despite all the changes, we'll move on. Things will change, yet they will stay the same. We'll eliminate one need to have another take it's place. We'll find an answer only to have another one opened up.
And you know what - there's so much with technology we could do now, but there's just not enough time/resources/money for individuals. Given the freedom and the money I could wire my home to make it a house that most people never imagine.
Here's where my thoughts wander though - the actual understanding of technology lies in the hands of relatively few. The old adage goes knowledge is power. We (I'm not sure if you are, but you do read slashdot) control the flow of information. We have more information at our fingertips than ever before. And I think with that knowledge, an increasing amount of power is being put into our hands. I don't know where that will lead us. People have to trust us with their sensitive information, in order to run their servers. The more wired society becomes, the more power we will wield. At the moment, you can learn a lot about some individuals on the internet. In the future you should be able to learn some information about everyone easily on the internet.
Hmm, something you said just struck me. I was about to say that your nephew would probably waste his time with the power he's been given, today or 500 years ago. I mean, right now people work to obtain more toys and belongings, and die. There have been times in the past when there was meaning for a person's existence, and times when there wasn't. I'm not sure if I'm alone, though, but I feel there is change in the air - I can almost smell it. And when it comes, I daresay it will give purpose and meaning to all these people, a direction. And I don't think this coming change is good either. Power can be used for good or for evil. I'm wondering though... if you could give meaning to society what would it be? War gives meaning, so does religion (of which I am a member). Danger does. A feeling of purpose and destiny...A goal, something that needs to be achieved for some reason. And the only one I can think of that won't be too negative is a meaning consisting of pursuing technology for the purpose of perfecting society. but again, I feel, once one corner is turned we'll see there's yet another bend.
Interesting thought, but warning signs of what? Ignoring this, what risk are we risking? Do you have any predictions of the outcome if we don't keep up with it? And can you envision a way that we can keep up?
Ah, yes, an explanation for that is good. "Their blood shall be upon them" means that the guilt of their crime is theirs to bear - and that the execution of them is justified. If I say that the blood of someone else is upon me, then I say that I took their life unjustly and that I bear the guilt for that action. To say their blood is upon themselves is to say that the guilt lies with them, and it is no crime to take their lives.
It is worth noting that it is practicing homosexuality that the Bible condemns. Christians acknowledge, or at least are supposed to, that we are all wicked in one way or another.
As for the "thou shalt not kill" - there is a difference between murder and kill which most people are aware exists but are not sure of the boundaries between the two. Kill is the justified taking of a life. The circumstances under which it is justified - that is another question. Either way, I hope that helps you understand.
Thanks for the reply, was interested. For some reason I feel like talking about some of these things more.
I was wrong as you pointed out about all atheists saying that they are good enough that they don't need God. It is only some that say that.
I am confused about this paradox you present - gays that believe in the bible are asked to commit suicide peacefully?
It is obvious that homosexuality is abnormal and counterproductive to both natural selection and christianity. It does not mean that if someone has these feelings we should reject them. There are some gays who say they are comfortable with their sexuality. There are others that realise that it is not normal and seek to deal with it (sexuality is entirely possible to alter, leading one to believe that homosexuality is not genetic).
But that suicide comment - I really don't understand that. No-one I've heard has ever said that.
Comment on the Matthew 7:1 verse. You will notice it says, basically, judge not lest you be judged by your own standards. But first take the plank out of your own eye before helping your brother. The Bible does not outright condemn judging (in some places it tells us that we should), but rather be careful of it.
I had a similar issue with my church. I agree with the reply to your post, that the printer can open up a greater potential than that money spent outright - for example, I think 25cents (roughly) of every dollar - I could be wrong on this - given to world vision is spent on admin charges, etc. However, all that money that is kept goes into advertising and other efforts that in turn produce more money than they would have had from keeping the 25cents.
However, there is some truth in what you say. In my church they wanted to implement windows desktops when Linux would have been more than perfect (in some cases it isn't, in this case it was). What that meant was spending money on winXP licenses for each PC, along with an upgrade for all but one pc because none of them would run XP - and there's no downgrade rights. They still wanted to use windows even though I showed them Linux was good (and they agreed). Why? I think because they wanted to go with what they knew, to feel safe. They said because if a secretary worked in the office they wanted her to have training in the primary applications used so she could put it on her resume. I actually left the role of admin over this - I couldn't condone spending of money on pointless endeavours when it could be saved and given to a more worthwhile cause.
On another topic, throwing around derogatory comments like "desert cult" do nothing to pursuade us, only to get brownie points for yourself with like minded slashdotters. Not all churches are the same, not all atheists are the same, no one is the same. Some live by the principles they expound, others don't. You can't look at those who transgress the principles of Christianity and say "See? I told you Christians were liers". In fact, one core belief is that Christians believe that they are basically not good people - and that's why we need God. And the atheist says "what's not good about me? I'm good enough that I don't need God". Amusing arrogance at the least. I'd be curious to see just exactly what it is an atheist could possibly believe they are "good enough" at so that they don't need God. After all, without God there is no right or wrong - there is only "something that helps me pass on my seed" and "something that stops me passing on my seed". The fact that atheists come by a set of moral laws independently of religion is a testimony to God's existence and a mockery of what the atheist believes. If natural selection sets any precedence, then almost every atheist I view is not living the way they should. They should all be living in ways that helps them get more children - what path they choose is irrelevant (being nice, deceptive, violent, etc). What is important is producing as many children as possible.
This question raises many other questions and interesting thoughts.
I know christianity isn't popular on slashdot or amongst geeks (hackers portrait says we're rare but not unknown). Nonetheless, there is a verse in there which is pertinent to this conversation:
"many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase"
I quote that mainly because I'm not sure we always take note of how different the world is from what it was. King Solomon commented on how there was nothing new under the sun. Under Chinese religion (can't remember exactly what), they say nothing is ever quite the same. I think both are true. We have changed so much, but we are essentially the same as those who went before us.
What amazes me the most is how much the world has changed in 10, 20, 50 and 100 years. What amazes me more is just how quickly we can adapt to the change. Computers as we know them today weren't around 20 years ago. A new technology comes out and people can learn it within a few days, weeks or months.
I was thinking the other day about books, when I got my sharp zaurus. I thought, this is cool I can put books on this device and read them while I'm away. The gutenberg project gives me access to a wealth of information. I was in a shopping center at the time, and I looked around at all the people and thought, "we have so much wisdom available and hardly any of it is going to be touched". I wondered how many books we have at our fingertips that before the printing press people would have been delighted to get their hands on.
But I digress a little. Nowadays we can travel hundreds of kilometers in less than an hour by means of aircraft. We can communicate virtually instantly with people all over the world. When we want, culture and political barriers can be circumvented. We have an unprecedented capacity to learn, and it's only going to increase in the future. And it just amazes me how quickly humans are able to adapt and comprehend the changes. Slashdotters are, in general, unique in the world in our ability to comprehend the changes. But the using of the technology is not so far off that your grandmother can't eventually learn it. Our generation will have lived and learned about rapid change. Even if we can no longer learn and understand what's behind it, we will be able to use it.
I just think, so much has changed, yet essentially everything is the same. We eliminated hunger problems in rich countries so that we no longer need to work much to eat. Now people work for other things - electricity, internet access, computers, etc. If we ever make them as ubiquitous as air, then there will be something else to work for. I think this is a universal principle - we will *always* work no matter what changes. We'll just find new ways of doing what we already want to do, and faster, more efficiently. I think some of the primary ones (not true in all circumstances, but mostly): work, love, learning, life, communication.
Anyway, there's no real coherency to these thoughts. Just reminding everyone of how much it's changed. It's sometimes hard for me to appreciate how much it's changed. I yearn new techology and the change it brings, so for me these things are not overpowering or daunting. I feel it's moving too slow. Yet most feel it's going too fast, and though it doesn't feel that way to me in general I have to agree - and step back and see it that way every now and then.
He was sent to hell? I don't understand...Galileo wasn't mentioned in the Bible as having gone to either heaven or hell, so I'm not sure where you are getting your info from unless you mean something that the catholic church said.
Answer this question: would you judge whether my car is any good without having seen it or driven it? I have not given you evidence for creationism. I'm not interested in arguing creation or evolution with you. For a simple reason: you treat me with no respect. I'm interested in spending my time discussing things with people who are interested to learn and show some signs of intelligence. That way, if I'm wrong, I won't feel bad about admitting it - and if I'm right, they won't feel bad about admitting it. Now instead, you spout rubbish about how we're unable to present anything scientific, we talk about magic, creationism is not science, etc. All these questions I've considered, but I'm simply not interested in a discussion with you.
I just want you to know, that the people I show this thread to - evolutionist or creationist - think you are immature and treat me with no respect. One evolutionist said your opinion is worth nothing because of your insults. As I said before, I don't know what sort of person you see yourself as, but your posts are serving as a testimony against yourself and what you believe.
As for the science comment. A couple of quick thoughts. First, ICR, AiG, etc aren't too interested in seeing creationism taught in schools (as they said, why would they want an evolutionist presenting the creationist position?). Also, creationism model is not science. Anything that deals with things we cannot observe is not science. It fits more in the realm of philosophy and religion. Evolution is the same. For example, the supposed transitional fossil Archaeopteryx. No one has seen or observed it evolve - but scientists point to scientific evidence to present the unscientific claim that it evolved. It doesn't make it less viable, it's just not science. I'm not sure if you'll understand what I'm saying here. Science deals with things that can be observed and tested. Anyway, I'd rather not dwell on this because I'm simply not interested in an argument.
I mentioned I work in IT also to show you how your assumption that I was a 14yrold kid with a few cliches was inaccurate. I too know people in IT who are ignorant and just shouldn't be doing it. They're not willing to consider where they might be wrong.
So just to summarise again - I was never interested in defending creation or attacking evolution in this thread. I just want you to know how you appear to others right now - including those whose understanding of evolution I listen to, and will try to understand.
As much as it may look like a cop out (not willing to present my case, got no evidence, have to invent lies, etc), I'm not interested in having a debate with you. I am happy with anyone whose not interested in acting like a barbarian.
Slashdot Mirror
Found this too, a reply to your nice page.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
I thought I should retouch this after coming across another website I had heretofore been unaware of. He talks about the definition given by talkorigins of evolution, and makes precisely the same statement I did:
Talk.Origins is very hard to targetâ"a fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the âfact of evolutionâ(TM), these people will employ a definition of evolution [âoeBiological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over timeâ] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there.
I wish and hope you can understand this - that we don't disagree with that plain defintion - but that this definition does not necessarily lead to what talkorigins was designed to defend. I don't appreciate this kind of deception, not in the slightest. You may read the full article here.
And how many scientists in the field of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry have you convinced? About zero. You cannot even convince most mainstream Christian denominations.
Again, I don't care. I personally have not convinced any - however, there have been scientists and Christians numerous times pursuaded. Even if there weren't, I still base my opinions on what I understand (not desire) to be correct.
Just grabbing a few quick references...
You are mistaken if you think I'm going to go to my library and borrow or purchase any of these books. As for the talkorigins site, I might be willing to examine each of those in detail, but I really don't feel like doing that with you. Maybe another time
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the initial life form - it deals with life once it has formed. The area investigating initial life forms is referred to as abiogenesis.
A common copout. Of course the theory of evolution strictly refers to after the formation of life. However, the general phrase "evolution" refers to a number of realms besides biological evolution (even though this is not correct usage). If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the earth is in fact around 6000 years old, then the theory of evolution will be declared false. If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the first life that evolution requires could never have formed or come into existence, then evolution will be declared false. So even though evolution doesn't directly deal with these areas, it lies on that foundation without which it has no foothold. That is why it is a copout to ignore them. But in the phrase you were replying to, I was referring to the process of evolution not the initial formation of life.
ROTFL. I'm not really here to teach you biology. There are large complex undelying ideas in evolution, but there is also a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. Consider opposing data? Well, I've seen so many creationist whoppers that I have a hard time understanding how some of them can look at themselves in the mirror with the lies that they have told. Noah's ark, the speed of light, 2nd law of thermo, dinosaur/manprints, the Grand Canyon, basking shark/plesiosaur, blatent misquotes of various evolution supporters.....
You can stop laughing now. As I said to another once - I contend that the problem is not with the creationist arguments but instead with your biased misinterpretation of them. For example, many of the points in SciAm's 15 answers to creationist nonsense are based on misunderstand or misrepresentation of the creationist position (example, no creationist with the slightest bit of knowledge would argue against natural selection). But I don't have time to talk with you. I'm interested to see if you have realised your mistake with mtDNA after reading those other responses. I have read up on this issue a great deal, I have seen arguments for both creationists and evolutionists.
I know, I have something we can discuss - how about you cite for me one major evidence for evolution? Then we can talk about that. I prefer to deal with specifics, because there's no way to argue against a statement like "amazing amount of evidence in support of it".
Go ahead. But so far, you and your supporters have failed to convince a noticable number of scientists working in those areas.
And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the materialistic/atheistic bias of many/most of these scientists? No, of course not. Because while creationists are fairly accused of bias, it is unfair to accuse materialistic atheists of being biased against creationism.
Heck, I know a Christian biologist who is also an evolutionist. He's relatively high up in his work place. He believes evolution, but he hadn't even *heard* about the creationist arguments. So it's absolutely no surprise to
I have been reading up on this issue for a long time.
No. New species arise from existing species. The only way that it wouldn't is if there was some sort of mechanism that would keep sufficient mutations from accumulating from happening - something that has never been found.
You are not going to fool me - this works the other way. Mutations have not been observed to gradually give rise to new species. The processes that evolution claim created life on earth have *never* been observed. You make it sound like these mutations are assuredly going to give rise to new species. In fact, you just have no understanding of genetics. These mutations change information, but they don't demonstrate the process by which the original simple single celled life could have possibly obtained more information to create more complex life forms. We simply don't observe it - and that is why it is unscientific to claim that it happened. Don't you see though - you have taken something that is observed, and extrapolated that into something we can't observe. That is unscientific.
Again regarding mtDNA I suggest you read my post here and then view the responses and replies by BCGlorfindel, perhaps that will make it clearer for you.
And ditch your elephant hurling - "This is a debate tactic known as âelephant hurlingâ(TM). This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions." (from AiG website). I'minterested in specifics, not generalities. Problems with geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology? I'd rather deal with them because I think they can be answered. Your general responses do nothing to pursuade me.
The disagreance is whether those mutations lead to the simple organisms->today's life, and that is simply not covered by the theory you provided. We believe these mutations are insufficient to ever lead to what evolutionists claim.
As far as controversy, simply because many people accept evolution does not mean it is right - evolutionists are fond of quoting Galileo's experiences, so am I. Galileo was by far a minority view. I have no problem with considering something that is a minority view to be correct.
Now you need to provide for me the description of the testable theory that creationists disagree with - simple organisms->life today. The statement you gave does not describe that at all.
Something I should have picked up before:
Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.
What you are saying is that even though the true mutation rates did not fit with the fossil record, the ones that were invented based on the fossil record correlate with it better and so should be used. Or something else? It seems to me you are saying that "if something disagrees with what we believe it can't be true". I think you need to explain this more carefully, because right now it looks like you are willing to invent numbers to support evolution.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
Bah, that's not evolution at all. I mean, it is and it isn't. The evolution I disagree with is the idea that all living things alive today could have originated from simple single celled live, over time evolving through inheritence to become what we see today. What you describe as evolution I have no problems with.
So give me the description of the theory that causes so much controversy.
I consider it the role of posters to demonstrate the incorrect or inaccurate nature of a post - definately not the role of mob moderation. We're not interested in whether someone *thinks* something is incorrect, but rather why it is incorrect.
Yes, I have - and I've found it not to be true. I have *never* found a slashdotter who yet understands the creationist position. And the biggest problem is that they all *think* they do when their posts display obvious fundamental misunderstandings.
Again, have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it ... lacking (to use a polite description)?
That's still no reason to moderate it troll. Overrated....maybe, but certainly not troll.
Now, when I say they are not scientific, I mean that it does not meet any of the criteria needed to be a scientific theory - Explaining the evidence, making predictions that can be examined, and be falsifiable (you can devise tests that could possibly disprove it). For years, creationists have been asked for a scientific theory of creationism on the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins - and none has *ever* been posted.
Every time this has been posted I ask the person who seaid it to provide me first with the equivalent evolutionary theory, so I can produce or see if something of a similar nature can be made. Besides, creationism model isn't scientific in the true sense, but it does make a few predictions that can be proven right or wrong by the use of scientific methods. Evolution employs unscientific methods also, AFAIK. For example, has anyone ever observed the whale evolving from a land mammal? What is a scientific, repeatable, observable test to prove that?
And as far as using the Bible as evidence, I hope you realize that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and total falsehoods (example: The Great Worldwide Flood - there is overwhelming evidence that it never happened).
How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?
Now, your explanation of how the human race was created, well, it is amusing fiction. Of course, it completely contradicts all known fossil and genetic evidence. It's ironic when you talk about others having a misunderstanding of genetics when you post this stuff.
I wasn't presenting a scientific argument. I was demonstrating within the constraints of the Biblical explanation, how it is possible that these first children found partners. Besides, the problem with most fossil/genetic evidence is that it's based on evolutionary assumptions. For example, mtDNA was believed to prove show that mtDNA eve lived around 200,000 years ago. However, the rate of mutation of mtDNA was decided by evolutionary assumptions, ie "mtDNA eve should have lived around this long ago, so this is what the mutation rate should be". Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster, resulting in an mtDNA eve around 6,000 years ago. So I am skeptical that there is huge amounts of fossil and genetic evidence - I'm guessing, case by case, that these were all dated by evolutionary assumptions rather than blind tests...and there's other evidence that indicates a young earth.
This is just an urban myth. The truth is that part of a rib can be taken off and it will grow back if done right. Surgeons do this sometimes when they need some bone for an operation.
It is not expected for men to be missing a rib. Besides, it's rubbish anyway - just because Adam was missing a rib that didn't change his DNA, so his children should have still had the same number as he originally had. That's like saying if I lose my arm my children will also have only one arm.
This is the result of a misunderstanding of creationism.
And I wouldn't worry about you being marked as a troll. Evolutionists are almost never marked troll. I find however, no matter how rational or kind/non confrontational I make my pro-creationist posts they get modded troll. But I don't mind, people like my other posts enough that my karma will be impervious to their attacks!
Here is what happened. Adam and Eve were created man and woman, the first two humans. They had many children, sons and daughters. These sons and daughters married each other (if there was an official ceremony) and had children. These children were safe from the dangers of mutations since they were the offspring of flawless parents. That means there were no common recessive harmful mutations to share amongst each other. Incest was only outlawed much later (around 2000 years later I think) when mutations had become rife and the dangers were stronger. Then it wasn't restricted to cousins - in fact, amongst cousins I believe the danger is ~2% or something, but that could be wrong.
As for going over the hill, that is a load of crock - and the result of a misreading of the Bible (or perhaps imagining verses that aren't there), and a misunderstanding of genetics.
Sweet, that's great, thanks!
But our prices really are bad - it looks like there's starting to be a lot of really good ADSL plans going around though, definately some potential.
However, what could explain it is the habit for humans to commit genocide at times, and also to breed within the family. These have both occurred in large scales in the past. Families would stick together very strongly (tens, hundreds, thousands of people). They would sometimes wipe out entire family lines in a war. They would marry as exclusively as possible within families. Along with disease, etc, that cuts a population down. I'd see that as a better creationist explanation.
On a related note, mitochondrial DNA seems to indicate that our common mother (mitochondrial eve) existed ~6000 years ago, less than the 70,000 years proposed here. It was originally thought that mitochondrial eve existed ~200-250,000 years ago. However, new research in 1997 (off memory) indicated that mutations in mtDNA occurred far more rapidly than assumed (assumptions were based on evolutionary expectations for mitochondrial eve). This resulted in the new date. Take note: I've had many evolutionists come back and quote the original article saying "See! It says 200,000 years, not the 6,000 creationists quote. Just another example of creationist lies". However, they failed to look at the top of the article which was dated (Again, off memory) 1996, a year before the new research was discovered. I thought I'd mention that to save potential embarrasment.
A reference can be found here, though I used to refer to the article on creationscience.com - the author is slow to update (including the now outdated moon-dust argument) so I am putting less focus on that resource.
More articles can be found here.
Hope this helps.
The problem with this is the similarity of the human method of design, the commonality of DNA, etc. Evolutionists use this as an argument of common ancestor, creationists use it as an argument of common designer. Either way, it eliminates the extra-terrestrial option, UNLESS the aliens too originated from earth (or all life on earth from them), but diverged at some point then rejoined.
I think that was the point though. When he said cut-n-paste I automatically read it as meaning an automated script, but going through a slow web interface. Still, maybe I'm giving too much justice to it. Or just not understanding :)
Interesting thoughts.
:)
I'm not sure of what I think really. My gut feeling is that, despite all the changes, we'll move on. Things will change, yet they will stay the same. We'll eliminate one need to have another take it's place. We'll find an answer only to have another one opened up.
And you know what - there's so much with technology we could do now, but there's just not enough time/resources/money for individuals. Given the freedom and the money I could wire my home to make it a house that most people never imagine.
Here's where my thoughts wander though - the actual understanding of technology lies in the hands of relatively few. The old adage goes knowledge is power. We (I'm not sure if you are, but you do read slashdot) control the flow of information. We have more information at our fingertips than ever before. And I think with that knowledge, an increasing amount of power is being put into our hands. I don't know where that will lead us.
People have to trust us with their sensitive information, in order to run their servers. The more wired society becomes, the more power we will wield. At the moment, you can learn a lot about some individuals on the internet. In the future you should be able to learn some information about everyone easily on the internet.
Hmm, something you said just struck me. I was about to say that your nephew would probably waste his time with the power he's been given, today or 500 years ago. I mean, right now people work to obtain more toys and belongings, and die. There have been times in the past when there was meaning for a person's existence, and times when there wasn't. I'm not sure if I'm alone, though, but I feel there is change in the air - I can almost smell it. And when it comes, I daresay it will give purpose and meaning to all these people, a direction. And I don't think this coming change is good either.
Power can be used for good or for evil. I'm wondering though... if you could give meaning to society what would it be?
War gives meaning, so does religion (of which I am a member). Danger does. A feeling of purpose and destiny...A goal, something that needs to be achieved for some reason.
And the only one I can think of that won't be too negative is a meaning consisting of pursuing technology for the purpose of perfecting society. but again, I feel, once one corner is turned we'll see there's yet another bend.
I don't know. Many thoughts, few conclusions
Interesting thought, but warning signs of what? Ignoring this, what risk are we risking? Do you have any predictions of the outcome if we don't keep up with it? And can you envision a way that we can keep up?
Ah, yes, an explanation for that is good. "Their blood shall be upon them" means that the guilt of their crime is theirs to bear - and that the execution of them is justified. If I say that the blood of someone else is upon me, then I say that I took their life unjustly and that I bear the guilt for that action. To say their blood is upon themselves is to say that the guilt lies with them, and it is no crime to take their lives.
It is worth noting that it is practicing homosexuality that the Bible condemns. Christians acknowledge, or at least are supposed to, that we are all wicked in one way or another.
As for the "thou shalt not kill" - there is a difference between murder and kill which most people are aware exists but are not sure of the boundaries between the two. Kill is the justified taking of a life. The circumstances under which it is justified - that is another question. Either way, I hope that helps you understand.
Just needs one nicely placed emp...
Suddenly everyone's getting injections of morphine.
Thanks for the reply, was interested. For some reason I feel like talking about some of these things more.
I was wrong as you pointed out about all atheists saying that they are good enough that they don't need God. It is only some that say that.
I am confused about this paradox you present - gays that believe in the bible are asked to commit suicide peacefully?
It is obvious that homosexuality is abnormal and counterproductive to both natural selection and christianity. It does not mean that if someone has these feelings we should reject them. There are some gays who say they are comfortable with their sexuality. There are others that realise that it is not normal and seek to deal with it (sexuality is entirely possible to alter, leading one to believe that homosexuality is not genetic).
But that suicide comment - I really don't understand that. No-one I've heard has ever said that.
Comment on the Matthew 7:1 verse. You will notice it says, basically, judge not lest you be judged by your own standards. But first take the plank out of your own eye before helping your brother.
The Bible does not outright condemn judging (in some places it tells us that we should), but rather be careful of it.
I had a similar issue with my church. I agree with the reply to your post, that the printer can open up a greater potential than that money spent outright - for example, I think 25cents (roughly) of every dollar - I could be wrong on this - given to world vision is spent on admin charges, etc. However, all that money that is kept goes into advertising and other efforts that in turn produce more money than they would have had from keeping the 25cents.
However, there is some truth in what you say. In my church they wanted to implement windows desktops when Linux would have been more than perfect (in some cases it isn't, in this case it was). What that meant was spending money on winXP licenses for each PC, along with an upgrade for all but one pc because none of them would run XP - and there's no downgrade rights. They still wanted to use windows even though I showed them Linux was good (and they agreed). Why? I think because they wanted to go with what they knew, to feel safe. They said because if a secretary worked in the office they wanted her to have training in the primary applications used so she could put it on her resume. I actually left the role of admin over this - I couldn't condone spending of money on pointless endeavours when it could be saved and given to a more worthwhile cause.
On another topic, throwing around derogatory comments like "desert cult" do nothing to pursuade us, only to get brownie points for yourself with like minded slashdotters. Not all churches are the same, not all atheists are the same, no one is the same. Some live by the principles they expound, others don't. You can't look at those who transgress the principles of Christianity and say "See? I told you Christians were liers". In fact, one core belief is that Christians believe that they are basically not good people - and that's why we need God. And the atheist says "what's not good about me? I'm good enough that I don't need God". Amusing arrogance at the least. I'd be curious to see just exactly what it is an atheist could possibly believe they are "good enough" at so that they don't need God. After all, without God there is no right or wrong - there is only "something that helps me pass on my seed" and "something that stops me passing on my seed". The fact that atheists come by a set of moral laws independently of religion is a testimony to God's existence and a mockery of what the atheist believes. If natural selection sets any precedence, then almost every atheist I view is not living the way they should. They should all be living in ways that helps them get more children - what path they choose is irrelevant (being nice, deceptive, violent, etc). What is important is producing as many children as possible.
Ah sorry, didn't read this properly - ignore my other post.
Erm...huh?
Did this come completely out of the blue or what?
I know christianity isn't popular on slashdot or amongst geeks (hackers portrait says we're rare but not unknown). Nonetheless, there is a verse in there which is pertinent to this conversation:
"many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase"
I quote that mainly because I'm not sure we always take note of how different the world is from what it was. King Solomon commented on how there was nothing new under the sun. Under Chinese religion (can't remember exactly what), they say nothing is ever quite the same. I think both are true. We have changed so much, but we are essentially the same as those who went before us.
What amazes me the most is how much the world has changed in 10, 20, 50 and 100 years. What amazes me more is just how quickly we can adapt to the change. Computers as we know them today weren't around 20 years ago. A new technology comes out and people can learn it within a few days, weeks or months.
I was thinking the other day about books, when I got my sharp zaurus. I thought, this is cool I can put books on this device and read them while I'm away. The gutenberg project gives me access to a wealth of information. I was in a shopping center at the time, and I looked around at all the people and thought, "we have so much wisdom available and hardly any of it is going to be touched". I wondered how many books we have at our fingertips that before the printing press people would have been delighted to get their hands on.
But I digress a little. Nowadays we can travel hundreds of kilometers in less than an hour by means of aircraft. We can communicate virtually instantly with people all over the world. When we want, culture and political barriers can be circumvented. We have an unprecedented capacity to learn, and it's only going to increase in the future. And it just amazes me how quickly humans are able to adapt and comprehend the changes. Slashdotters are, in general, unique in the world in our ability to comprehend the changes. But the using of the technology is not so far off that your grandmother can't eventually learn it. Our generation will have lived and learned about rapid change. Even if we can no longer learn and understand what's behind it, we will be able to use it.
I just think, so much has changed, yet essentially everything is the same. We eliminated hunger problems in rich countries so that we no longer need to work much to eat. Now people work for other things - electricity, internet access, computers, etc. If we ever make them as ubiquitous as air, then there will be something else to work for. I think this is a universal principle - we will *always* work no matter what changes. We'll just find new ways of doing what we already want to do, and faster, more efficiently. I think some of the primary ones (not true in all circumstances, but mostly): work, love, learning, life, communication.
Anyway, there's no real coherency to these thoughts. Just reminding everyone of how much it's changed. It's sometimes hard for me to appreciate how much it's changed. I yearn new techology and the change it brings, so for me these things are not overpowering or daunting. I feel it's moving too slow. Yet most feel it's going too fast, and though it doesn't feel that way to me in general I have to agree - and step back and see it that way every now and then.
He was sent to hell? I don't understand...Galileo wasn't mentioned in the Bible as having gone to either heaven or hell, so I'm not sure where you are getting your info from unless you mean something that the catholic church said.
Answer this question: would you judge whether my car is any good without having seen it or driven it? I have not given you evidence for creationism. I'm not interested in arguing creation or evolution with you. For a simple reason: you treat me with no respect. I'm interested in spending my time discussing things with people who are interested to learn and show some signs of intelligence. That way, if I'm wrong, I won't feel bad about admitting it - and if I'm right, they won't feel bad about admitting it.
Now instead, you spout rubbish about how we're unable to present anything scientific, we talk about magic, creationism is not science, etc. All these questions I've considered, but I'm simply not interested in a discussion with you.
I just want you to know, that the people I show this thread to - evolutionist or creationist - think you are immature and treat me with no respect. One evolutionist said your opinion is worth nothing because of your insults. As I said before, I don't know what sort of person you see yourself as, but your posts are serving as a testimony against yourself and what you believe.
As for the science comment. A couple of quick thoughts. First, ICR, AiG, etc aren't too interested in seeing creationism taught in schools (as they said, why would they want an evolutionist presenting the creationist position?). Also, creationism model is not science. Anything that deals with things we cannot observe is not science. It fits more in the realm of philosophy and religion. Evolution is the same. For example, the supposed transitional fossil Archaeopteryx. No one has seen or observed it evolve - but scientists point to scientific evidence to present the unscientific claim that it evolved. It doesn't make it less viable, it's just not science. I'm not sure if you'll understand what I'm saying here. Science deals with things that can be observed and tested.
Anyway, I'd rather not dwell on this because I'm simply not interested in an argument.
I mentioned I work in IT also to show you how your assumption that I was a 14yrold kid with a few cliches was inaccurate. I too know people in IT who are ignorant and just shouldn't be doing it. They're not willing to consider where they might be wrong.
So just to summarise again - I was never interested in defending creation or attacking evolution in this thread. I just want you to know how you appear to others right now - including those whose understanding of evolution I listen to, and will try to understand.
As much as it may look like a cop out (not willing to present my case, got no evidence, have to invent lies, etc), I'm not interested in having a debate with you. I am happy with anyone whose not interested in acting like a barbarian.