The Creationist's Nightmare?

[Cangamble]

Fish that walk?
X9inncLXAHg

[boxcar]

Hey, Mr. Cangambe, are you a "can do" kinda guy? If so, feel free to take on this little nightmare:

How did life evolve to get to the Personal, Intelligent, Organic and Moral from the Impersonal, Unintelligent, Inorganic and Amoral, respectively?

Get back to us when you Can, Mr, Can., will ya? Whatever you do, don't miss out on this golden opportunity to convert and dazzle all us dumb creationists with your brilliance. ;)

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

please............ no more creationist versus evolution threads...........

it has been done before...............

[boxcar]

please............ no more creationist versus evolution threads...........

it has been done before...............

...as have numerous other topics that are regurgitated from time to time. What else is new? ;)

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Hey, Mr. Cangambe, are you a "can do" kinda guy? If so, feel free to take on this little nightmare:

How did life evolve to get to the Personal, Intelligent, Organic and Moral from the Impersonal, Unintelligent, Inorganic and Amoral, respectively?

Get back to us when you Can, Mr, Can., will ya? Whatever you do, don't miss out on this golden opportunity to convert and dazzle all us dumb creationists with your brilliance. ;)

Boxcar
I can't convert the wilfully ignorant. Once you understand how evolution works, it is easy to figure out how over millions of years, things like a brain, etc. evolved.

You can be as self righteous as you want, but I just shake my head had creationists as embarrassments to humanity.

[Cangamble]

For the lurkers, here is a good piece on brain evolution:
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html#Heading2

[tleusin]

boxcar not weighing in on this subject. Just want to know what inorganic life is?

[boxcar]

I can't convert the wilfully ignorant. Once you understand how evolution works, it is easy to figure out how over millions of years, things like a brain, etc. evolved.

You can be as self righteous as you want, but I just shake my head had creationists as embarrassments to humanity.

Since this all so easy Mr. CanDo, we're still awaiting your answer to my question.

Incidentally, what you should be embarrassed about Mr. Know-it-All are your lack of grammar and spelling skills, e.g. "head had creationists as embarrassments...", "wilfully"? Should we attribute this to [brain] evolution gone awry in your case? I guess all those gazillions of years + chance weren't much help to you personally, eh? :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

boxcar not weighing in on this subject. Just want to know what inorganic life is?

All I asked of my smug evolution "expert" is how did evolution work to get from the Inorganic, Impersonal, Unintelligent and Amoral states to the Organic, Personal, Intelligent and Moral states, respectively? Very straightforward question. Since it's alleged that humans are part of the evolution chain, then there should be a scientific explanation for these four processes.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

All I asked of my smug evolution "expert" is how did evolution work to get from the Inorganic, Impersonal, Unintelligent and Amoral states to the Organic, Personal, Intelligent and Moral states, respectively? Very straightforward question. Since it's alleged that humans are part of the evolution chain, then there should be a scientific explanation for these four processes.

Boxcar
I provided a link. I'm sure you read it by now (sure you did, sure you did)
Oh, and wilfully is spelled two ways:
http://www.google.com/search?q=wilfully&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___CA215

I'm not sure what word I meant to write instead of "had" but I admit a mistake.

Meanwhile, you keep asking your wilfully ignorant questions, and I'll link answers for those interested in the truth.

The internet is helping you lose many flock members, and it is posters like you, who challenge facts because they don't fit into your ancient text, who are partially to blame.

People are generally smart, but some people don't really know what evolution is, just like a lot of people don't know the circumstances surrounding the Georgia conflict, for example. When they read my answers, and the links I provide, you just make yourself look thoroughly sad.

Keep denying reality if you must, and please, ask me something else, so I can link a good video or article.

[dutchboy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7570097.stm

[Cangamble]

7w57_P9DZJ4

[Cangamble]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7570097.stm

What is really neat in the following video about whale evolution is how mammals like whales and dolphins swim versus the way fish swim. It is visual proof that whale and dolphin ancestors once had 4 legs (around 5:57 on the video):
I2C-3PjNGok

[OTM Al]

If you are interested in the amazing abilities of species to adapt to their environments and evolve, do some reading about the wildlife in New Zealand before people showed up there. There were no mammals, only birds and species had adapted to take over roles that were mammalian in the rest of the world. Unfortunately many were killed off or nearly so when settlers came and let cats and ferrets lose there

[boxcar]

I provided a link. I'm sure you read it by now (sure you did, sure you did)
Oh, and wilfully is spelled two ways:
http://www.google.com/search?q=wilfully&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___CA215

I'm not sure what word I meant to write instead of "had" but I admit a mistake.

Meanwhile, you keep asking your wilfully ignorant questions, and I'll link answers for those interested in the truth.

Oh...are you referring to gems (answers so-called :rolleyes: ) like these in that first link:

"It is not possible to know exactly why the human brain evolved as it did, but consideration of the structural evolution of the brain and results of comparative research on human and nonhuman brains provides some useful clues." (emphasis mine)

Definition of "useful clues": Clueless Junk Scientists speaking in tongues, i.e. in the languages of pyscho-babble, wishful thinking, junk theories.

More little gems that beg the question:

"American evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould provided a better term for this phenomenon--exaptation. He made a major contribution to our understanding of evolution by insisting that we distinguish adaptation, the evolutionary process through which adaptedly complex structures and behaviors are progressively fine-tuned by natural selection with no marked change in the structure's or behavior's function, from exaptation, through which structures and behaviors originally selected for one function become involved in another, possibly quite unrelated, function. Exaptation makes it difficult if not impossible to understand why our brain evolved as it did. Although the brain allows us to speak, sing, dance, laugh, design computers, and solve differential equations, these and other abilities may well be accidental side effects of its evolution." (emphases mine)

I particularly relish this last phrase -- "may well be..."

But the best is this confession:

But although we may never know the actual events and specific selection pressures responsible for our brain power, we have no scientific reason to believe that evolution could not have fashioned our brain through natural selection. The fact that living organisms today have nervous systems and brains ranging from quite simple to amazingly complex is compelling evidence that our brain evolved through forgotten ancestors in progressive stages from simple to complex. And somehow, as a part of this evolutionary process, that most remarkable and mystifying of all natural phenomena came into being--human consciousness.

This makes for more entertaining reading than do Elmer Fudd quotes!

"...we have no scientific reason to believe that evolution could not have fashioned our brain through natural selection."

Well, gee whiz: Nor do we have any scientific reason to not believe that all humans inhabited Earth because we were dropped out of alien spaceships in pods 355 trillion years ago! Prove that we weren't!

Or to state the writer's hypothetical in a positive fashion, he could have just as well said: We have scientific evidence to believe that evolution could have fashioned our brain through natural selection.

Do you ever receive any from system sellers or tipsters and such that essentially read in part: "...and you, too, could win..."? Or "with this system you could rake in at least 50K a year"? You'll never receive a con artist's offer that will say, "...you will win"! They always leave the door wide ajar for UNCERTAINTY -- or DOUBT -- just the same way the author of this article or e-book has.

So, the best this writer could tell us is that all this "scientific evidence" could make it possible. And, sir, "could" does not = any real degree of certainty.

But here's the punch line from this laughable loony tunes piece:

"And somehow, as a part of this evolutionary process, that most remarkable and mystifying of all natural phenomena came into being--human consciousness." (emphases mine)

SOMEHOW!?

Now, please try to follow along because I perceive, sir, that you haven't begun to plumb the profound depths to my original question. In fact, the profundity has eluded you altogether. One of the four processes I mentioned was the Personal state. How did we get from the Impersonal state to the Personal?

Let's examine the definition of "personal":

Main Entry:1personal
Pronunciation:*p*rs-n*l, *p*r-s*n-*l
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin personalis, from Latin persona
Date:14th century

1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL *personal ambition* *personal financial gain*
2 a : done in person without the intervention of another; also : proceeding from a single person b : carried on between individuals directly *a personal interview*
3 : relating to the person or body
4 : relating to an individual or an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner *a personal insult*
5 a : being rational and self-conscious *personal, responsive government is still possible John Fischer* b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction *a personal devil*
6 : of, relating to, or constituting personal property *a personal estate*
7 : denoting grammatical person

Home in on 5a above. This is what I meant by "Personal". Even the author of this loony tunes piece understands the unfathomable depth of the problem -- at least he's way ahead of you! To his credit, he confesses that he doesn't have the first clue -- i.e. "somehow" we got from the "simple" nervous system, for example, to "human consciousness".

Please, sir, before attempting to diagnose someone else as "willfully ignorant" -- physician, heal thyself! You are without a clue! You have answered nothing, just as the page you linked us to hasn't addressed my question. Nor will you find any scientific answers on your highly valued internet -- where more junk abounds than not!

I stated some years back on this very forum that if anyone provided genuine scientific answers to all four processes, that is to say, prove to my satisfaction how the Inorganic, Impersonal, Unintelligent and Amoral evolved into the Organic, Personal, Intelligent and Moral states, then I will renounce God and join the ranks of evolutionists and atheists. (Why atheism? Because, logically, God is not necessary in an evolutionary scheme or model. So, why lug around unnecessary baggage?

Ciao,
Boxcar
P.S. Please accept, though, my profoundest apology for pointing out to you a non-mistake. In the Merriam-Webster's dictionary I use, the alternate spelling is not listed. Moreover, the more common spelling is with two Ls.

[Cangamble]

I really don't care what it would take for you to accept evolution. You'll just continue to quote mine (example Gould who did not deny that evolution happened, only debated how it happened) and move the goalposts while denying mounds and mounds of evidence.
I feel sort of sorry for people who need to rely on a book written almost 2000 years ago for their basis of science. It is very sad and like I said, embarrassing to me.

My guess is you didn't read the entire article on brain evolution I linked.
But again, I'm not replying to change your "mind." I'm replying so that others who do not know as yet how much evidence there is for evolution, and how it answers the what happened to life on earth question from the earliest history of earth to now question.

I want to thank you for being able to reply. My sister, who has no science background whatsoever is over visiting with her kids on the weekend. She saw me view the whale video, and said she was always fascinated by whales.
She really had no opinion about evolution until yesterday night. So me, my wife and her husband spent some time explaining it to her. Now she gets it.

You helped convert another person. Thanks again.

As for human consciousness. To be honest, there are a lot of things about the brain that scientists have yet to discover as yet. But a few thousand years ago, when lightning couldn't be explained, it didn't mean that some supernatural force was behind it either, though at the time, it was the only answer one could probably think of.

Excellent video time:
OnQaCxF-1IQ
Playlist available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnQaCxF-1IQ&feature=PlayList&p=E2F80DE2C7726F00&index=0&playnext=1

I also want to add, that if evolution were false, there would be mounds of evidence against it. The fact is that evolution is the most scrutinized science out there, and there hasn't been one published scientific finding or study that contradicts the overall theory.

It is pretty coincidental that every new science find, and every new revelation with respect to how genes work and how DNA works fits in completely with evolution.

There is nothing that doesn't fit.

[Cangamble]

If you are interested in the amazing abilities of species to adapt to their environments and evolve, do some reading about the wildlife in New Zealand before people showed up there. There were no mammals, only birds and species had adapted to take over roles that were mammalian in the rest of the world. Unfortunately many were killed off or nearly so when settlers came and let cats and ferrets lose there
Apparently Noah dumped off some bats there:)
http://www.terranature.org/mammals.htm

[LottaKash]

Too Funny...........

Now, I understand, a little better, why, being a male and not pregnant, I have this unsatiable urge to eat worms.........I would have liked to ask my great, great something or other to the 10th power, as to why that is, but I don't think amoeba's were that smart way back when.......

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

]As for human consciousness. To be honest, there are a lot of things about the brain that scientists have yet to discover as yet.

I can tell that just by reading your posts. :rolleyes:

It is pretty coincidental that every new science find, and every new revelation with respect to how genes work and how DNA works fits in completely with evolution.

There is nothing that doesn't fit.

Except for the four huge pieces stated in my initial question. You must have the attention span the length of a fruit fly. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[so.cal.fan]

Cangamble:
Creation and Evolution are one of the same. Same thing.
Everything living thing on this planet was created by DIVINITY to EVOLVE.

[Tom]

However, some DEvolve! :eek::lol:

[boxcar]

Cangamble:
Creation and Evolution are one of the same. Same thing.
Everything living thing on this planet was created by DIVINITY to EVOLVE.

Why is evolution necessary if there was a divine creator?

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

A few observations, first excellent point so.cal.fan, second it seems environmentalists are a more significant threat to evolution than intellectual design proponents. After watching Cangamble’s educational videos, I learned it takes extinction to spur evolution i.e. climate change. One video references up to 5 mass extinctions taking place on planet earth resulting in species expansion through evolution. Therefore, it may be concluded a species must face extinction for evolution to work.

If a species environment is destroyed the species is left with one of three choices. The species may relocate to a similar environment, the species may adapt to the changed environment, or the species must become extinct.

Current day environmentalists truly do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, as they, deny extinction’s role in spurring species growth. Environmentalists desire to control nature’s natural selection by artificially protecting environments thus denying natural selection from operating.

It seems to me modern day environmentalist agendas are more of a threat to the belief and workings of evolution than any believer in creationism or some form of intelligent design. Cangamble, as an ardent supporter of natural selection, you should direct your ire towards the group that gives lip service to evolution, while attempting to thwart evolution through intervention, rather than people that desire a sticker on a text book

[Cangamble]

Keep ignoring all the evidence. We need more of you posting your questions and nonsense on the internet.
Thanks plenty.
Your questions were answered by the videos.

[Cangamble]

Cangamble:
Creation and Evolution are one of the same. Same thing.
Everything living thing on this planet was created by DIVINITY to EVOLVE.
Evolution doesn't rule that out. Though I don't buy it because I see no evidence for the supernatural.

[RobinFromIreland]

...whatever arguments about how simplistic life becoming extraordinary life being improbable, or perhaps unknown, surely it is inordinately more probable than accepting intelligent life simply came into being, or the existence of a omnipotent supernatural force?

[Cangamble]

A few observations, first excellent point so.cal.fan, second it seems environmentalists are a more significant threat to evolution than intellectual design proponents. After watching Cangamble’s educational videos, I learned it takes extinction to spur evolution i.e. climate change. One video references up to 5 mass extinctions taking place on planet earth resulting in species expansion through evolution. Therefore, it may be concluded a species must face extinction for evolution to work.

If a species environment is destroyed the species is left with one of three choices. The species may relocate to a similar environment, the species may adapt to the changed environment, or the species must become extinct.

Current day environmentalists truly do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, as they, deny extinction’s role in spurring species growth. Environmentalists desire to control nature’s natural selection by artificially protecting environments thus denying natural selection from operating.

It seems to me modern day environmentalist agendas are more of a threat to the belief and workings of evolution than any believer in creationism or some form of intelligent design. Cangamble, as an ardent supporter of natural selection, you should direct your ire towards the group that gives lip service to evolution, while attempting to thwart evolution through intervention, rather than people that desire a sticker on a text book
You make excellent observations about the videos, but your spin about environmentalists is pretty out there.
Being an environmentalist and accepting evolution are separate entities.
If we have a really hostile environment we could go extinct as humans, so any artificial means to prevent our extinction would be welcome, after all, we are prewired to survive and so that our species future ancestors will survive.

Nobody said evolution has to be a good thing or bad thing. I accept facts, and evolution is a fact, but it doesn't mean that artificially trying to alter nature's course is a bad thing for our species.

[Cangamble]

Why is evolution necessary if there was a divine creator?

Boxcar
Why don't you just fess up and admit that you don't accept evolution because it makes your ancient text allegorical instead of literal? Be honest!
You base your ideas about science on a book written just less than 2000 years ago. Admit it.

[Show Me the Wire]

I respectfully disagree with you Cangamble. Yes we are hardwired to survive, which may play a role in the ability to adapt to a harsher environment. Our tinkering with the natural order may lead to our extinction. Maybe we need to adapt to an intermediate harsher environment to prepare us for a catastrophic climate change. If we prevent the intermediate event we may not have the necesarry adaption mechanism to survive as species a major extinction event.

Evolution is not about individual survival, but about the species. Nature being neither good nor bad is a faulty premise to base your conclusion that meddling with the natural selection process is not detrimental to our species. Meddling with nature is more about individual survival than species survival through evolution.

[Cangamble]

I respectfully disagree with you Cangamble. Yes we are hardwired to survive, which may play a role in evolution the ability to adapt to a harsher environment. Our tinkering with the naturla order may leas to our extinction. Maybe we need to adapt to an intermediate harsher environment to prepare us for a catastrophic climate change. If we prevent the intermediate event we may not have the necesarry adaption mechanism to survive as species a major extinction.

Evolution is not about individual survival, but about the species. Nature being neither good nor bad is a faulty premise to base your conclusion that meddling with the natural selection process is not detrimental to our species. Meddling with nature is more about individual survival than species survival through evolution.
Over 95% of species that ever lived on this earth went extinct. The odds aren't great of surviving certain catastrophic events or big changes in the atmosphere, if we leave things to natural selection.

For example, if a huge asteroid was heading towards earth, I think it would be to our advantage to try to destroy it before it hit earth.

Vaccinations may have helped our species survive and may help our species out immensely in the future if a super bug ever attacks.

We are evolved enough to do something about survival. The other animals that came and went were not.

[wonatthewire1]

For example, if a huge asteroid was heading towards earth, I think it would be to our advantage to try to destroy it before it hit earth.



Gotta disagree with you; it might be the only way we can get out of the two party political system in the US of A

[Show Me the Wire]

Over 95% of species that ever lived on this earth went extinct. The odds aren't great of surviving certain catastrophic events or big changes in the atmosphere, if we leave things to natural selection.

For example, if a huge asteroid was heading towards earth, I think it would be to our advantage to try to destroy it before it hit earth.

Vaccinations may have helped our species survive and may help our species out immensely in the future if a super bug ever attacks.

We are evolved enough to do something about survival. The other animals that came and went were not.

Ah, but if we can't prevent the asteroid from stricking the earth our species may have needed an intermediate environment to equip us with the needed mechanisms to survive as a species. We will just have to agree to disagree. I see environmetalists as more of a threat to species survival than people wanting a sticker on a textbook.

Moving on, why do you think we are so evolved that we can do something about survival, while the other animal species were not? Why is the human species so different from the other animal life?

[boxcar]

Gotta disagree with you; it might be the only way we can get out of the two party political system in the US of A

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Why don't you just fess up and admit that you don't accept evolution because it makes your ancient text allegorical instead of literal? Be honest!
You base your ideas about science on a book written just less than 2000 years ago. Admit it.

Why don't you answer my question? What' s the matter -- can't find the answers on you beloved internet?

And the major reason I don't accept evolution is because it's junk science. It raises more questions that it can answer adequately, starting with the one I initially posed.

Boxcar

[Investorater]

Christians agree that Genesis 1 establishes that the God of the Bible is the God of creation.In simple straightforward language Genesis tells us what we really need to know:God made the universe.God made all living things.God made us.There have been many conflicts between science and Christianity.The first eleven chapters of this first book of the Bible describe such things as the beginning of the universe,the sun and stars,the moon and earth,plant and animal life,and man.In Genesis are the reports of Adam and Eve,Cain and Abel and Noah's Great Flood.All of these have been battlegrounds.A lot of it springs from errors on both sides-faulty interpretations of Scripture colliding with unproved scientific theories.Does the Bible teach that creation took place about 4,000 B.C.?The date,4,004 B.c.,for creation was calculated by a seventeenth century archbishop named Ussher.Because he was an archbishop,people assumed that Ussher had to be right.So for 300 years that date has appeared in the margins of many Bibles.Today's scientists laugh at the 4,004 B.C.date because their theories and findings point to a very old earth,possibly several billion years old.But what does the Bible say?Simply:"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth."When was the beginning?The Bible doesn't say.The beginning could have been a few thousand years ago or it could have happened millions of years ago.It all comes down to this:the Bible doesn't claim to be a scientific account,but it cannot be proved unscientific.As one Bible scholar points out,there is no way to turn back the clock to the beginning.The subject lies beyond the scope and ability of natural science.While man's inquiring mind strives to match the Genesis creation account with evidence from his world,the fact remains that God's Spirit did not direct Moses to explain just how God used time in accomplishing creation.Why is it necessary to reduce the greatness of the Genesis account of creation to scientific terms?The Bible was written for all people everywhere-for people of every century.Genesis 1 Tells Who Not How.....Fritz Ridenour 1967

[Cangamble]

Why don't you answer my question? What' s the matter -- can't find the answers on you beloved internet?

And the major reason I don't accept evolution is because it's junk science. It raises more questions that it can answer adequately, starting with the one I initially posed.

Boxcar
The videos I presented answered your questions.
Junk science. You are an embarrassment to thinking humans.

[Cangamble]

Ah, but if we can't prevent the asteroid from stricking the earth our species may have needed an intermediate environment to equip us with the needed mechanisms to survive as a species. We will just have to agree to disagree. I see environmetalists as more of a threat to species survival than people wanting a sticker on a textbook.

Moving on, why do you think we are so evolved that we can do something about survival, while the other animal species were not? Why is the human species so different from the other animal life?
If you were gay, fools like Boxcar and their bible peddling nonsense would be a bigger threat to you than your idea of environmentalists if they ever gained prominence.

Luckily they are just becoming laughing stocks.

As for why we are so different than other species, that again was answered in the video series, but we aren't tremendously different than chimps, except we are intellectually superior that is (except for those like Boxcar that is)
As the video stated, something triggered (many things actually) our ancestors need to become very smart compared to other animals.
And there will always be a superior creature that dominates. Man dominates with our brain. Dinosaurs used to dominate with their size.

But the short answer is that we are lucky we are here today, and lucky we are smart enough to enjoy the planet in a way that other animals can't.

[Show Me the Wire]

Cangamble:

So your answer to my question, about why humanity is different than other animal life, is sheer luck?

[OTM Al]

Yes, in fact we are. It is believed that our ancestors dwindled in number at one point to only about 10,000 in scattered spots. It was our ability to think and adapt, God given or whatever you want to believe, that allowed us to flourish. I can never get over this arguement. I don't see anything in evolution that says that things were given a little push at one time. I have no problem believing in God and in evolution and can use the brain that God gave me to understand that Genesis is the same sort of creation myth all societies have. Those who claim to understand the infinite understand nothing

[Cangamble]

Cangamble:

So your answer to my question, about why humanity is different than other animal life, is sheer luck?
Being in the right place at the right time. Man could easily be extinct right now. There were many times we could have been wiped out.
Also, big brains are expensive when we talk about energy an animal uses.
Let me put it this way, we weren't destined to become the most intelligent species on this planet.

[Cangamble]

Yes, in fact we are. It is believed that our ancestors dwindled in number at one point to only about 10,000 in scattered spots. It was our ability to think and adapt, God given or whatever you want to believe, that allowed us to flourish. I can never get over this arguement. I don't see anything in evolution that says that things were given a little push at one time. I have no problem believing in God and in evolution and can use the brain that God gave me to understand that Genesis is the same sort of creation myth all societies have. Those who claim to understand the infinite understand nothing
Many people don't have a problem separating faith and fact.
This guy for example:
http://thankgodforevolution.com/

Also the Vatican has pretty much accepted evolution. And then there is Dr. Ken Miller.

[boxcar]

The videos I presented answered your questions.
Junk science. You are an embarrassment to thinking humans.

'Scuse me!? You're an embarrassment to yourself and your world view! But you're too dense to realize it. You present a link that you purported answered my initial question -- only to have the writer tell us that "SOMEHOW" we developed "human consciousness", i.e. evolved into a Personal state. I asked you "how", and your answer on that web page was "somehow"!? You're a waste of my time. You're a laughable, pathetic joke -- just like your junk science!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Also, big brains are expensive when we talk about energy an animal uses. Let me put it this way, we weren't destined to become the most intelligent species on this planet.

If you were the only indication of this, I'd say you were spot on. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

'Scuse me!? You're an embarrassment to yourself and your world view! But you're too dense to realize it. You present a link that you purported answered my initial question -- only to have the writer tell us that "SOMEHOW" we developed "human consciousness", i.e. evolved into a Personal state. I asked you "how", and your answer on that web page was "somehow"!? You're a waste of my time. You're a laughable, pathetic joke -- just like your junk science!

Boxcar
Boxcar keep posting. You already helped convert my sister.
There isn't anyone here who has watched the videos I presented, that believes I haven't answered your question. The videos answer it. You haven't watched them so you haven't a clue.

I'll ask you a question now, though others have asked you questions here, and you have yet to answer them. You will dodge my question I'm sure.

What is your theory on how and when man got on this planet, and how old is the earth? And please cite some scientific evidence to back up your "theory?"

Thanks in advance.

Oh, and keep posting. Many people are learning a lot here, thanks to your ignorance.

[Cangamble]

The Late Great Carl Sagan

bPfBKZYrxgM
e brain

3,4 billion years ago - Life appears
Nature´s experiments on the origin of life seem to have come to fruition in a rather short time. This fact suggests that the experiments may have been easy, and the chances of success fairly high. According to the fossile record, relatively complicated organisms like bacteria already existed when the earth was only one billion years old.

Although a bacterium seems like a simple kind of life to us, it is a quite complex chemical factory, whose existence depends on the simultaneous manufacture of several thousand different kinds of chemicals. Bacteria are far more advanced than those simple creatures that first wriggled across the threshold of life on the earth
If bacteria already existed when the earth was one billion years old, a long period of evolution must have preceded their appearance, in which the chemical machinery that makes up the business of life for a bacterium was slowly being worked out and improved.

This implies that the threshold of life itself must have been crossed far earlier - perhaps when the earth was only a few hundred million years old, or even younger. A few hundred million years is not a long time for such an important experiment; if the experiment succeeded as quickly as that, the probability of its success must have been fairly high.

450 million years ago - the first Fishes
The first fishes possesed a first-class skeleton with bones in fin as well as spine. They also posessed a brain. It was a very small brain, but it was the first one that had existed on the earth up to that time.

300 million years ago - the first Reptiles
The brains of our reptile forebears were divided cleanly into three compartments: a front compartment for smell, a middle compartment for vision, and a rear compartment for balance and coordination.

These arrangements were inherited from the simple brain of the fishes. The receptors for vision and smell were coordinated in a region between the smell brain and vision brain, which was a command post called the diencephalon. Here, the inputs from different senses were compared and put together for a program of action.

The basic instincts of survival - sexual desire, the search for food and the aggression responses of "fight-or-flight" - were wired into this region of the reptile´s brain.

200 million years ago - the first Mammals
When the mammals evolved out of the reptiles, their brains began to change. First they developed a new package of instincts, related to the reptilian instincts for sex and procreation, but modified for the special needs of a mammalian lifestyle. Chief among these was the instincts for parental care of the young. Here was a revolutionary advance over the behavior of reptile parents, for whom the newly hatched young provided a tasty snack if they could catch them. But the reptile young were prepared to fight for their lives. In the population of the mammals, on the other hand, the young arrived in a helpless and vulnerable state, and parental affection was essential for their survival.

The new instincts of the mammals for parental care did not replace the older reptilian instincts; they augmented them. The ancient programs of the reptile brain - the search for food, the pursuit of a mate, and flight from the predator - were still essential to survival. As a result, the command post in the brain that controlled instintive behavior grew larger.

The brains of the mammals changed in another important way, that was related to their nocturnal lifestyle. As these animals passed into their 100-million-year time of darkness, the vision brain diminished in importance and the smell brain expanded.

The two swellings in the smell brain were the cerebral hemispheres. In the beginning, when the smell was the main function of the cerebral hemispheres, these parts of the brain were modest in size and could be fitted into the cranium of the mammal without wrinkling or folding. Later, when the ruling reptiles disappeared and the mammals began to move about by day and rely on the sense of vision as well as smell, more circuits had to be added to the brain to receive the new information from the eyes and analyze it. The added circuits for vision were in the cerebral hemispheres, which swelled to an even larger size as a result.

120 thousand years ago - Homo Sapiens appears
The growth of the cerebral cortex accelerated further in man´s immediate ancestors, and reached explosive proportions in the last million years of human history, culminating in the appearance of Homo Sapiens.

The primitive region in the brain, that held the circuits for the instinctive behavior of the reptile and the old mammal, was now completely enveloped by and buried within the human cerebral cortex.

Yet this ancient command post, relic of our distant past, is still active within us; it still vies with the cerebral cortex for control of the body, pitting the inherited programs of the old brain against the flexible responses of the new one.

Experiments suggest that parental feelings, source of some of the finest human emotion, still spring from these primitive, programmed areas of the brain that go back to the time of the old mammal, more than 100 million years ago.

One part of the old brain, called the hypothalamus, is only the size of a walnut in the human brain, and yet a minute electrical stimulus applied to this region in the brain can create the emotional states of anger, anxiety or acute fear. The stimulation of nearby regions, only a few tenths of an inch away, produces sexual desire, or a craving for food or water.

The hypothalamus also appears to contain centers for aggression, killing, and fight-or-flight responses.

Experiments indicate that states of anger and aggression are created by electrical signals originating in the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus behaves as though it contains a gate that can open to let out a display of anger or bad temper.

Normally, this gate is kept closed, but now and then the animal´s senses tell its brain that its rights are endangered; a mate is lured away, food is stolen, or threat signals are received; and then the package of brain survival programs called the "emotions" comes into play, and an electrical signal to open the gate comes from som ancient center of instinct deep within the brain.

It is as if two mentalities resided in the same body. One mentality is ruled by emotional states that have evolved as a part of age-old programs for survival. The other mentality is ruled by reason, and resides in the cerebral cortex.

In man, the cerebral cortex, or new brain, is usually master over the old brain. But the reptile and the old mammal still lie within us.


These properties of the human brain lead to a prediction regarding the life that will follow man. As nature built the new brain on top of the old in our ancestors, so too, in the next stage of evolution after man, we can expect that a still newer and greater brain will join the "old" cerebral cortex, to work in concert with the cerebral cortex in directing the behavior of a form of life as superior to man as he is to the ancient forest mammal.
http://www.primatesociety.com/Into/survival/timeline/textEvol.html

[boxcar]

Boxcar keep posting. You already helped convert my sister.
There isn't anyone here who has watched the videos I presented, that believes I haven't answered your question. The videos answer it. You haven't watched them so you haven't a clue.

I'll ask you a question now, though others have asked you questions here, and you have yet to answer them. You will dodge my question I'm sure.

What is your theory on how and when man got on this planet, and how old is the earth? And please cite some scientific evidence to back up your "theory?"

Thanks in advance.

Oh, and keep posting. Many people are learning a lot here, thanks to your ignorance.

Well, the first time you alleged that the link to that web page answered all my questions -- but, of course, it didn't and you even had to admit later that it didn't and that science still has unanswered questions to deal with. Now you allege that these "videos" answer all the aspects to my question :rolleyes: -- so, Mr. CanDo, why don't you encapsulate all that material into a post and explain it to us in a few paragraphs. You know -- give us a synopsis. This should be very easy for you to do since I'm sure you understand it all, since you have deceived yourself into believing have found the answers.

Explain to us in your own words in a cogent and concise way how the Inorganic, Impersonal, Unintelligent and Amoral evolved into the Organic, Personal, Intelligent and Moral states, respectively. No "ifs", no "maybes", no "coulds" and most definitely no more "somehows", please -- just plain ol' proven scientific facts. Just remember: If IFS and BUTS were Candy and Nuts, everyday would be Christmas. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Well, the first time you alleged that the link to that web page answered all my questions -- but, of course, it didn't and you even had to admit later that it didn't and that science still has unanswered questions to deal with. Now you allege that these "videos" answer all the aspects to my question :rolleyes: -- so, Mr. CanDo, why don't you encapsulate all that material into a post and explain it to us in a few paragraphs. You know -- give us a synopsis. This should be very easy for you to do since I'm sure you understand it all, since you have deceived yourself into believing have found the answers.

Explain to us in your own words in a cogent and concise way how the Inorganic, Impersonal, Unintelligent and Amoral evolved into the Organic, Personal, Intelligent and Moral states, respectively. No "ifs", no "maybes", no "coulds" and most definitely no more "somehows", please -- just plain ol' proven scientific facts. Just remember: If IFS and BUTS were Candy and Nuts, everyday would be Christmas. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I'm not a scientist, so I let those who can explain science do it for me. You originally didn't ask for my own words, now you are moving the goalposts, a tactic which is consistent of the wilfully ignorant reality denier.
The videos I provided gave the answers to your questions. But you aren't interested in the truth. You just want to keep beating your chest and howl at the moon, making yourself look like a pathetic moron to those who get it.

There are no coulds ifs or buts in Sagan's video or the paste job I provided in that post.


Oh, and where is the answer to the question that you I asked you. I knew you wouldn't answer it. You yokels are so predictable.

Here it is again:

What is your theory on how and when man got on this planet, and how old is the earth? And please cite some scientific evidence to back up your "theory?"

[boxcar]

I'm not a scientist, so I let those who can explain science do it for me. You originally didn't ask for my own words, now you are moving the goalposts, a tactic which is consistent of the wilfully ignorant reality denier.
The videos I provided gave the answers to your questions. But you aren't interested in the truth. You just want to keep beating your chest and howl at the moon, making yourself look like a pathetic moron to those who get it.

There are no coulds ifs or buts in Sagan's video or the paste job I provided in that post.

If you're talking about that last long post you sent up here, that dumb post did not address my questions. It was a waste of my valuable time reading it. You're still living in La La Land if you think for moment that it did.

You're a predictable mind-numb robot who can't think for yourself. You say you're not a scientist? Well, then, how did you explain that whale video to your sister? What did you do get down on the floor and pretend your Free Willy for her by flapping your legs? :rolleyes: You alleged that she understood everything after you and her hubby explained it all to her. Well...explain to us how those four states evolved. Should be a piece of cake for someone of your great intellect. :D


Oh, and where is the answer to the question that you I asked you. I knew you wouldn't answer it. You yokels are so predictable.

Here it is again:

What is your theory on how and when man got on this planet, and how old is the earth? And please cite some scientific evidence to back up your "theory?"

You still haven't answered mine. You can do it in your own words or you can provide a link to READABLE material. I don't do videos. I prefer reading, thank you. I absorb things better when they're on "paper". This medium is much better, also, for picking up all the little nuances -- not to mention catching the inevitable syllogisms. ;)

Boxcar

[Boris]

You yokels are so predictable.

[/b]

Why do you need to be condescending to people with faith?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why do you need to be condescending to people with faith?It's unreal that both these guys can't conduct themselves in an adult fashion. All the stupid name calling that goes on while each of them dances around the other...

We're waiting for the payoff here fellas....let me try and get you to the point....

I believe Boxcar did NOT ask for your OPINION Cangamble...he asked you to provide a synopsis of the VIDEO that you claim is a rock solid scientific explanation of the question he posed. I don't think it's unfair of him to ask you to summarize what the video states as answers to his question.

After all, you don't seem at all adverse to typing, or posting copyrighted material on my website....

[Cangamble]

Why do you need to be condescending to people with faith?
I'm not condescending with most people of faith, only creationists who deny evolution. To me they are laughing stocks, and I treat them as such.
Much like I would treat anyone who professes that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.

[Cangamble]

The article on brain evolution that I posted explains how consciousness evolved.
The Sagan video clearly explains that consciousness, "morality," and personality are a result of a complex cerebral cortex that evolved over time, and much more in humans.
The same basis that a neck got larger on a giraffe (random mutations), is the same basis that the cerebral cortex evolved and got larger and more complex over time.
It is pretty simple stuff, even my niece who is 12 understands it happened, and the fossil evidence confirms that it happened.
As for from inorganic to organic, I'm not sure what you are asking.

Now, I answered your question in my own words, I still expect you to duck and dodge my question:


What is your theory on how and when man got on this planet, and how old is the earth? And please cite some scientific evidence to back up your "theory?"

[Cangamble]

It's unreal that both these guys can't conduct themselves in an adult fashion. All the stupid name calling that goes on while each of them dances around the other...

We're waiting for the payoff here fellas....let me try and get you to the point....

I believe Boxcar did NOT ask for your OPINION Cangamble...he asked you to provide a synopsis of the VIDEO that you claim is a rock solid scientific explanation of the question he posed. I don't think it's unfair of him to ask you to summarize what the video states as answers to his question.

After all, you don't seem at all adverse to typing, or posting copyrighted material on my website....
I think you just need to see the first reply by Boxcar to me, to see who reduced our conversation to lower levels.

I'm not dancing. I sincerely attempted to answer the questions. Did you see the videos I posted?

And I just answered it again (in my own words). Watch how he moves the goalpost again and calls the answer unacceptable, and I guarantee you, he will not answer my question.

As for the copyrighted material. I needed to put something out there because the videos weren't being watched and he still kept on coming back that I didn't answer his question.

That paste job coupled with Sagan's video does answer his original question.

[boxcar]

The article on brain evolution that I posted explains how consciousness evolved.

Which article specifically? Which post number on this thread? I'd like to go back and read that.

The Sagan video clearly explains that consciousness, "morality," and personality are a result of a complex cerebral cortex that evolved over time, and much more in humans.
The same basis that a neck got larger on a giraffe (random mutations), is the same basis that the cerebral cortex evolved and got larger and more complex over time.
It is pretty simple stuff, even my niece who is 12 understands it happened, and the fossil evidence confirms that it happened.

Yes, I can see why it's "pretty simple stuff" with an "explanation" like this. You do understand, of course, that you employed circular reasoning in your answer, right? I asked, how did it all evolve? And you answer with:
"...consciousness, 'morality' and personality resulted with the evolution of the "complex cerebral cortex" over time. :bang: :bang: In other words, it happened because it all evolved! :bang: But you don't tell us HOW. What specific mechanisms and processes were in play, and how did they interact to get to where we are today? And what is the rock-solid evidence for same? Have experiments been conducted in labs? Have scientists been able to conduct experiments that have produced the Personal, the Intelligent and the Moral from the Impersonal, Unintelligent and Amoral? No...well, was anyone around a gazillion years ago to record for us exactly what happened and how it happened?

Of course, your 12-year old niece "understands it happened" with an explanation like that! But does she understand HOW it happened. It's pretty easy to feed mush into young, developing skulls. Indoctrination at that age is easy. Having said this, however, I believe your little niece and probably your recently converted sister, as well, would make far better apologists for evolution than you have!

As for from inorganic to organic, I'm not sure what you are asking.

What!? You like to represent yourself as this big brain, and you don't understand what I'm asking!? Look the terms up in a common dictionary.

Now, I answered your question in my own words

Yeah, right. If you believe that, you need to be drug tested. :rolleyes:


Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Which article specifically? Which post number on this thread? I'd like to go back and read that.



Yes, I can see why it's "pretty simple stuff" with an "explanation" like this. You do understand, of course, that you employed circular reasoning in your answer, right? I asked, how did it all evolve? And you answer with:
"...consciousness, 'morality' and personality resulted with the evolution of the "complex cerebral cortex" over time. :bang: :bang: In other words, it happened because it all evolved! :bang: But you don't tell us HOW. What specific mechanisms and processes were in play, and how did they interact to get to where we are today? And what is the rock-solid evidence for same? Have experiments been conducted in labs? Have scientists been able to conduct experiments that have produced the Personal, the Intelligent and the Moral from the Impersonal, Unintelligent and Amoral? No...well, was anyone around a gazillion years ago to record for us exactly what happened and how it happened?

Of course, your 12-year old niece "understands it happened" with an explanation like that! But does she understand HOW it happened. It's pretty easy to feed mush into young, developing skulls. Indoctrination at that age is easy. Having said this, however, I believe your little niece and probably your recently converted sister, as well, would make far better apologists for evolution than you have!

As for from inorganic to organic, I'm not sure what you are asking.

What!? You like to represent yourself as this big brain, and you don't understand what I'm asking!? Look the terms up in a common dictionary.



Yeah, right. If you believe that, you need to be drug tested. :rolleyes:


Boxcar
You are a typical disingenuous Fundy creep. You of course moved the goalpost.
You said you asked a simple question and now you want a detailed scientific answer as to how evolution happens and you want real time evidence for something that takes millions of years.

You are very sad and very pathetic, and I'm being nice.

Again, you didn't answer my question, and everyone here can see it. You are nothing but a laughing stock.

Post 45 answers your "simple question"

As for the mechanics of how evolution happens, it is best to watch this short video (15 minutes):
qKb1LXxKNHY

As for how the cerebral cortex evolved (that is where are creativity, consciousness, "morality" etc come from), it is the same process of how any evolutionary process occurs (random gene mutation).

Have we noticed random gene mutation currently? Yes.

In many instances actually, but one that a 5 year old could even understand has happened in Australia over the last 40 years.

"Cane toad evolution

Hot on the heels of the reports (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/49/17150) that snakes that prey on frogs and toads are evolving to have smaller jaw gape and a longer body length (and hence intestinal length), as cane toads in the northern region of Australia are toxic, comes a report in Nature that the toads are evolving too (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/49/17150). It appears that the toads are travelling further and faster than their ancestors did 40 years ago, when they were introduced. Speed gives the speedy ones an advantage - they have access to "naive" ecosystems, with food availability and mating space that is not heavily crowded.

Their legs are longer, and they have roughly five times the distance cover they had before. But older populations, where this selective advantage is not present, show a decline in leg length. The time since colonisation correlates with this decline. Hate them, or hate them intensely, they are marvellously adaptive."

http://evolvethought.blogspot.com/2006/02/cane-toad-evolution.html

Evolution happens. It is merely positive (for survival) genetic mutations that take within a population over time.
The longer the time, the more abrupt the changes will be (especially if food sources and predators have changed within the ancestors environment)

[boxcar]

You are a typical disingenuous Fundy creep. You of course moved the goalpost.
You said you asked a simple question and now you want a detailed scientific answer as to how evolution happens and you want real time evidence for something that takes millions of years.

A few things, you arrogant, pompous ape descendant: First, you're either a liar or have a reading comp problem. (But in your case, you're probably both!) Nowhere did I ever state that my question was simple. I characterized my question as being "straightforward" and "profound". And neither of these terms equates to "simple".

Secondly, you can't provide a detailed answer because science hasn't any concrete, detailed answers. You have so soon forgotten these quotes from that first web page you linked us to -- you know the one in which you boasted that all the answers to my questions were be found? Here they are again:

"It is not possible to know exactly why the human brain evolved as it did, but consideration of the structural evolution of the brain and results of comparative research on human and nonhuman brains provides some useful clues." (emphasis mine)

and...

"Exaptation makes it difficult if not impossible to understand why our brain evolved as it did. Although the brain allows us to speak, sing, dance, laugh, design computers, and solve differential equations, these and other abilities may well be accidental side effects of its evolution." (emphases mine)

and...

"And somehow, as a part of this evolutionary process, that most remarkable and mystifying of all natural phenomena came into being--human consciousness." (emphases mine)

And have you so soon forgotten how you responded when I called you to task for making untruthful claims about that first page to which you linked us?
You wrote:

Originally Posted by Cangamble
As for human consciousness. To be honest, there are a lot of things about the brain that scientists have yet to discover as yet.

So here, with lots of egg on face, you backpedaled away from your boastful and bogus claims. But now you provide another link that is equally unhelpful and boast once again that the link answers all my questions, not one bit concerned that circular reasoning was employed!

And of course, I want real time evidence. In the absence of same, then anyone who believes this theory is operating on far more faith than it takes to believe in God and in creationism. Here's why I cannot logically believe in evolution: Evolution requires the belief that from the Simple the Complex was derived. That from Chaos came Structure, Purpose and Design so that life could survive in its environment.

I tell you what would be easier for me believe. It would be easier for me to believe that I could take a 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, run the pieces through a shredder just to make assembling it a little more challenging (although this example doesn't even begin to approach the complexity of the simplest living organisms), then dump the contents of the shredder from atop a high skyscraper on a breezy day and expect all the shredded pieces to eventually fall perfectly in place on the ground to form the exact picture of the puzzle that was designed on the puzzle's box cover. After all, given enough Time + Luck + Chance, anything can happen, isn't this right? In this little analogy, we have all the ingredients necessary for belief in evolution. We have the Simple (fine shredded pieces), the Chaotic (confused, unorganized state of the shredded pieces + hostile environment), plus Time, plus Chance. Eventually, these millions of pieces would somehow assemble themselves so as to reveal their intended design. The only problem is: No one will be around to verify it! Just like macro-evolution is unverifiable.

The only reason why so many people are so eager to put their faith in this intellectually bankrupt theory of evolution is because they think it's a safe haven from God. If evolution were true, then there was no Creation, if no Creation then no Garden of Eden, if no Garden then no Adam and Eve, and if these two never existed there was no Fall (i.e. Sin for those of you still stuck in your primordial soup), and if no Sin, then no Redemption by a Savior is necessary, and therefore no fear of ever coming being subjected to divine Judgment. Once man rationalizes away divine retribution, we become masters of our own lives and are free to live them anyway we want because we'll never be answerable or accountable to anyone in the next life -- for indeed very many don't even believe in the afterlife.

And for those who believe in both God and evolution, they can still rationalize away divine judgment because we are what we are due to the forces of evolution. God screwed up big time when he cranked up the engine to evolution. Therefore, it's all God's fault that everything turned out pretty crappy. It's unthinkable that he would ever hold us accountable for his mess.


You are very sad and very pathetic, and I'm being nice.

Only if "nice" is defined as an aggressive, attacking, venomous snake in the grass. Your brutish behavior and arrogant attitude suggests that you are throwback. You are living proof of devolution -- of someone who never managed to escape the primordial ooze.

I am done with you. But please feel free to invite your newly converted sister, your 12-year old niece or that 5-year old to this discussion because any of these would be more intellectually honest, engaging and stimulating than you have been.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

I didn't bother reading the response from Boxcar.
I'm sure he/she/it moved the goalposts, called the video response not sufficient, called my answer not sufficient, and most importantly I guarantee he/she/it didn't answer my question as to what he/she/it thinks happened while providing scientific evidence to back up the theory.

I guarantee all of the above.

I've had these conversations with DISINGENUOUS creationists many times before, and I find this happens almost every time.

Boxcar is too embarrassed to admit that he/she it believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that there is zero scientific evidence that backs up this claim.

All that exists is hole punching and the laughable claim that evolution is JUNK science :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Also, I doubt very much that BOXCAR bothered watching Rapid Ape's entire video and if he/she/it did, there was zero attempt to understand it.

BOXCAR is the KING/QUEEN of the wilfully ignorant.

Personally, I learned a bit more about evolution doing searches regarding brain evolution. I found lots of it fascinating. I hope others here did as well.

Doing internet searches has really educated me a lot over the years.

Many people here won't like this but when Mel Gibson started doing the Jesus film, I started doing searches for what Jesus really looked like.
What I found was startling. Not only is there nothing written about Jesus until much after his supposed death, but I now doubt Jesus was nothing more than an invention by Paul or someone like him.
Also, there is no evidence for the Exodus. In fact, evidence points to Jews not being monotheistic until around 600-700 BC.

I also know the apologist answers to both, but the fact is that if Jesus was that special, you would figure that Romans would have written about him, Jews would have, or Greek historians alive between 1-40 AD.

Nothing until Josephus who quite frankly observed Christians who by that time had believed that Jesus existed on the earth. 50 years is a long time, especially when the average age of people at that time was 40.

[Cangamble]

I lowered myself and read the post. Exactly what I predicted. HO HUM.

Anyway, at least this disingenuous individual has now sort of come clean.
Finally admitting that the reason he she it doesn't believe in evolution is because it goes against creation.

NO SCIENCE REQUIRED!!!!!
I didn't see anything on the real time cane toad and snake evolution we are seeing before our eyes, nor did I see anything about the fact that on average, a human being is born with 4 different genetic mutations that their parents didn't have (from the video).

Evolution happens, it is the wilfully ignorant who deny it.

Evolution is not something that has to replace God though. Science is not a conspiracy theory to prove there is no God.

However, it does prove that the earth is a lot older than some laughing stock Creationist believe it is.

Darwin was a Christian, so were the scientists in the 19th century who figured out the age of the earth. They were actually looking to confirm that God created man less than 10,000 years ago....but the evidence went totally against that worldview.

[OTM Al]

Hey Cangamble. If you couldn't tell already, I really enjoy discussing and learning about these topics you brought up. To me evolution enhances my wonder and belief in a divine power. How unimaginative it is to just plop some finished product down and leave it be. How glorious though it is to have something that changes and adapts and endures. Anyway, that's all I'll say about my personal beliefs.

I wanted to address some of the things you wrote though in regards to writings in the Bible and elsewhere.

It is clear that the people who became the Jews were not always monotheistic. You need not read very far into Genesis itself to see that. The creation days align perfectly with the dynasties of the Sumerian gods. They clearly practiced blood sacrifice and probably human sacrifice in the distant past as the story of Abraham shows. What is truely amazing and revolutionary is that somewhere along the way this view changed and something entirely new happened. Some will argue the Pharoh Akhenatun was a monotheist whith his worship of Aton, but in reality, Aton was nothing more than primitive sun worship. The Egyptians didn't buy it and Aton went out with the Pharoh.

Moses of course is credited with writing Genesis, and perhaps he really did. He is a bit of a mythic character himself. His own creation story is borrowed from more ancient Akkadian myth of the first known great king, Sargon. Mother sent him adrift in a basket, found by a princess, etc, etc. This does not make Moses fictional however as in those days to be a leader you had to be someone special, touched by the gods themselves and there must be something special surrounding your birth. They did the same thing to the Jesus story. The story of the Exodus though is one scholars now have been studying from a different and very fascinating angle. There is no evidence at all of a large group of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Jews lived there, yes, but generally as freed men. However, there is evidence that the Hebrews were ruled in their homeland by the Egyptians and the real exodus was actually the ridding of the domination of a foreign power and the 40 years in the desert was simply an alegory for a peoples finding themselves and their way in the world. A pretty good story if you ask me.

You also mention Josephus. It is pretty well recognized that the 2 mentions of Jesus as well as the mention of John the Baptist were most probably inserted in the work later by another writer. Of the manuscripts, they only appear in one and not the others. Josephus was familiar with many of the messaianic figures of the day however. A great upheval was happening in Judaism at this same time which would make for the beginings of modern Rabbinical Judaism and Josephus was an important enough man in his community to be made a general in the Jewish army in the uprising against the Romans, so he was well aware of the enormity and scale of the revolution of the times. This doesn't mean that Jesus was a made up man. I believe that he did exist, though many embellishments were made in his life with the tellings and retellings of his sayings and deed. It is thought that Mark was likely writen by someone who was actually there with him, though the other Gospels were not. Maybe the ideas were of one man or maybe they were several of these messianic figues melded together. I find that inmaterial, because the message itself was a very different and original thing and that in itself makes it a thing of wonder.

So there's the thoughts I have for the moment. I would enjoy continued discussion on this. Don't waste your energy on those who don't wish to discuss or think. Its taking time away from your own learning and thus a double wasting of your time.

[Boris]

Many people here won't like this but when Mel Gibson started doing the Jesus film, I started doing searches for what Jesus really looked like.
What I found was startling. Not only is there nothing written about Jesus until much after his supposed death, but I now doubt Jesus was nothing more than an invention by Paul or someone like him.
Also, there is no evidence for the Exodus. In fact, evidence points to Jews not being monotheistic until around 600-700 BC.

I also know the apologist answers to both, but the fact is that if Jesus was that special, you would figure that Romans would have written about him, Jews would have, or Greek historians alive between 1-40 AD.



Now I understand your condescending nature towards Christians. You require evidence to believe. You are incapable of faith. How do you drive down the street when the only thing that separates you from the on coming traffic is a little paint down the center of the road? You doubt Jesus existed but you have faith in the unknown driver.

You choose to live in a shallow place. Hope that works out for you.

[boxcar]

Now I understand your condescending nature towards Christians. You require evidence to believe. You are incapable of faith.

I beg to differ. He's a man of great faith as must anyone be who believes that everything evolved and even the origin of the Universe occurred through the simplistic formula of Time + Randomness + Luck = Anything Can Happen. I have no doubt at all that he believes the shredded pieces to my jigsaw puzzle analogy would somehow assemble themselves eventually into the picture on the cover of the box. And the megabytes of irony here is that people of his ilk scoff at Christians who believe in miracles. :rolleyes:

The only difference between the faith of a Christian and an evolutionist is the object. For the former, God is the object. For the latter, Man is the object; for the evolutionist trusts solely in fallible Man's knowledge (or science so-called).

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Now I understand your condescending nature towards Christians. You require evidence to believe. You are incapable of faith. How do you drive down the street when the only thing that separates you from the on coming traffic is a little paint down the center of the road? You doubt Jesus existed but you have faith in the unknown driver.

You choose to live in a shallow place. Hope that works out for you.
Sorry Boris, but I assumed Jesus existed and the Exodus happened for the first 40 years of my life.
And I used to be a believer in God when I was younger.
But evidence has changed my outlook.

My place is not a shallow place at all. And it isn't a delusional place either.

And I'm only condescending towards laughing stock creationists whether they be Jews, Muslims, or Christians, who deny reality in order to make their ancient text correct.

I don't have a problem with Jews, Muslims and Christians who add God to the equation though.

There is a big difference.

[Cangamble]

I beg to differ. He's a man of great faith as must anyone be who believes that everything evolved and even the origin of the Universe occurred through the simplistic formula of Time + Randomness + Luck = Anything Can Happen. I have no doubt at all that he believes the shredded pieces to my jigsaw puzzle analogy would somehow assemble themselves eventually into the picture on the cover of the box. And the megabytes of irony here is that people of his ilk scoff at Christians who believe in miracles. :rolleyes:

The only difference between the faith of a Christian and an evolutionist is the object. For the former, God is the object. For the latter, Man is the object; for the evolutionist trusts solely in fallible Man's knowledge (or science so-called).

Boxcar

The jigsaw analysis is garbage.
And when I said I learned a lot on this thread, I learned absolutely zero from your posts. Nobody did.
I just confirmed what a disingenuous creationist you are.

And to equate science with religious faith illustrates that your ilk are nothing but nuisances who stand in the way of progress.

Young earth creationists are laughing stocks and an embarrassment to humanity.

[Cangamble]

Hey Cangamble. If you couldn't tell already, I really enjoy discussing and learning about these topics you brought up. To me evolution enhances my wonder and belief in a divine power. How unimaginative it is to just plop some finished product down and leave it be. How glorious though it is to have something that changes and adapts and endures. Anyway, that's all I'll say about my personal beliefs.

I wanted to address some of the things you wrote though in regards to writings in the Bible and elsewhere.

It is clear that the people who became the Jews were not always monotheistic. You need not read very far into Genesis itself to see that. The creation days align perfectly with the dynasties of the Sumerian gods. They clearly practiced blood sacrifice and probably human sacrifice in the distant past as the story of Abraham shows. What is truely amazing and revolutionary is that somewhere along the way this view changed and something entirely new happened. Some will argue the Pharoh Akhenatun was a monotheist whith his worship of Aton, but in reality, Aton was nothing more than primitive sun worship. The Egyptians didn't buy it and Aton went out with the Pharoh.

Moses of course is credited with writing Genesis, and perhaps he really did. He is a bit of a mythic character himself. His own creation story is borrowed from more ancient Akkadian myth of the first known great king, Sargon. Mother sent him adrift in a basket, found by a princess, etc, etc. This does not make Moses fictional however as in those days to be a leader you had to be someone special, touched by the gods themselves and there must be something special surrounding your birth. They did the same thing to the Jesus story. The story of the Exodus though is one scholars now have been studying from a different and very fascinating angle. There is no evidence at all of a large group of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Jews lived there, yes, but generally as freed men. However, there is evidence that the Hebrews were ruled in their homeland by the Egyptians and the real exodus was actually the ridding of the domination of a foreign power and the 40 years in the desert was simply an alegory for a peoples finding themselves and their way in the world. A pretty good story if you ask me.

You also mention Josephus. It is pretty well recognized that the 2 mentions of Jesus as well as the mention of John the Baptist were most probably inserted in the work later by another writer. Of the manuscripts, they only appear in one and not the others. Josephus was familiar with many of the messaianic figures of the day however. A great upheval was happening in Judaism at this same time which would make for the beginings of modern Rabbinical Judaism and Josephus was an important enough man in his community to be made a general in the Jewish army in the uprising against the Romans, so he was well aware of the enormity and scale of the revolution of the times. This doesn't mean that Jesus was a made up man. I believe that he did exist, though many embellishments were made in his life with the tellings and retellings of his sayings and deed. It is thought that Mark was likely writen by someone who was actually there with him, though the other Gospels were not. Maybe the ideas were of one man or maybe they were several of these messianic figues melded together. I find that inmaterial, because the message itself was a very different and original thing and that in itself makes it a thing of wonder.

So there's the thoughts I have for the moment. I would enjoy continued discussion on this. Don't waste your energy on those who don't wish to discuss or think. Its taking time away from your own learning and thus a double wasting of your time.
I PMed you, in case you don't know by now.

I'm sure you and I are not the only ones here who learned something.

As for your take on history and the bible, I'm pretty much with you on most of what you are saying.

As far as the deductions with respect to the Old Testament, a great video series of the documentary The Bible Unearthed is on Youtube.

The conclusions reached makes the Exodus impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+bible+unearthed&search_type=&aq=-1&oq=

Here is part one:
05Oe1UAEATE

[boxcar]

I find it very odd that CanGamble who purports to have such a strong belief in evolution can, evidently, feel so threatened by creationists. Normally, when someone is comfortable in their skin -- comfortable and at at home with their world view or philosophy or religion -- secure in their beliefs-- they feel no need to personally attack those who don't share those beliefs (i.e. faith). Nor would they feel any need to lie in order to try to discredit those whose faith differs from theirs.

CG lied about the nature of my initial question; for I never said it was "simple". Now he shamelessly misrepresents another of my positions once again by saying I equated science with religious faith, when I did no such thing. All I essentially said was that to believe in evolution requires "great faith".

All rationale, normal people have a belief or faith system -- they believe in "something" or "someone" and neither have to be religious in nature. Agnostics and Atheists, for example, are hardly religious folks, yet both groups have faith in their respective world views -- both groups have a secular belief system. As stated recently, all evolutionists have as their primary object of faith fallible Man; for they put a great deal of trust in Man's finite knowledge -- in a science (so-called) that raises at least as many questions as it strives to answer.

Since macro-evolution has never been observed, recorded, tested or reproduced in a laboratory, then the "evidence" can easily be stacked like a deck of cards by a cardsharp. The evidence can be shaped and molded to fit the presuppositions -- the hypotheses. Of course, when previous theories or hypotheses become outdated by new discoveries that contradict them or become obstacles to difficult to overcome, then it's a relatively simple matter to make adjustments by creating new theories or hypotheses which at the moment, seem to fit the mold (assumptions). But when these become outdated, then the process continues again and again. This "science" of evolution itself, therefore, continues to evolve -- it's always in a state of flux -- all in the name of progress, of course. (To borrow CG's phrase, evolutionists are always moving the "goal posts" in their everlasting quest for the truth.) In short, because modern science has invested so much time and effort in this incredible theory, it can and never will turn back or renounce it for the bankrupt, irrational belief system it is -- even in the face of very strong evidence and arguments that militate against it. (There are numerous good sites on the web to read about the other side of this issue.) Modern Science, at this point in time, would be loathe to admit that such a large body of scientists have been wrong all this time. The science community would never be able to handle the shame. Of course, this so-called science has a conveniently built-in excuse for resting on perpetually sifting sands because the formula (Chaos + Time + Chance + Luck = Order/Design) for evolution prohibits macro-evolution from being proved.

Finally, CG tells us that my jigsaw puzzle "analysis" (which was really an analogy) is "garbage", but he doesn't explain why. He just issues another simple-minded declaration and expects everyone to believe it blindly. As stated previously, all the necessary ingredients for evolution are there. Those finely shredded pieces should eventually evolve from their state of Chaos into the state of Order/Design (the picture on the box), yet oddly he doesn't believe that. Honest, inquiring minds should be led to wonder why, since living organisms are infinitely more complex and were in an exceedingly more hostile environment than would be those shredded puzzle pieces. "Jigsaw puzzle evolution" should be a cakewalk by comparison.

Boxcar

[hcap]

I think that using "formula (Chaos + Time + Chance + Luck = Order/Design) for evolution prohibits macro-evolution from being proved.is limiting the debate to "Order vs Chaos". Neither of which is clearly understood either mathematically or by common sense. We are deluded by our own inability to grasp the much larger scales of time and distance of our universe. At a certain point in this debate, one has to admit that the concept of "God" or the concept of existence extending billions of years into the past and the future and correspondingly billions of light years in dimension, is just to vast to comprehend with our usual every day assumptions.

Science is a testable philosophy. It measures and correlates observable phenomena. It does not necessarily search for ultimate truth. As far as it goes, it is a quite successful endeavor. Technological advances we see all around us are due to repeatable testable hypothesis. It ultimately does not attempt to omit or not omit God from the equation. Overwhelmingly, the majority of religions have already accepted evolution as complimenting their faith, and see no conflict. Science makes no postulates about prime cause.

Faith and Religion are not testable, nor subject to objective experimentation.
A very different way of looking at the universe.

.................................................. .................................................. .....

There are various studies that support macroevolution. "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species"Here's one.....

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

.................................................. .................................................. .

My own feeling is that attempting to hold both evolution and God simultaneously in mind, a kind of synthesis occurs that leads me to greater insight about these very large issues.

[Cangamble]

Boxcar, I'm not threatened by creationists. Like I said, they are laughing stocks. But I welcome confrontations with them, because I am able to post what science is, and what science knows, and I'm not doing it for the wilfully ignorant like you...I'm doing it for those on the fence and those who haven't given it much thought.

I'm embarrassed by the amount of young earth creations and lack of acceptance of evolution that infests a great nation like the USA. I'm Canadian and we do have creationists, but the numbers are a lot lower.

Of all the Western countries, the USA is near the bottom when it comes to acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey (a Western country?) has lower acceptance.

Thanks for playing, and keep playing, so more of your flock will read and realize that you are peddling nonsense.

Hcap, great post. And thanks for handling the Jigsaw puzzle idiocy.

One thing though, science and God can be mutually exclusive unless your God is dependent on a Young Earth and the idea that man was poofed here less than 10,000 years old.

If that is what your God says, your God is wrong.

[Cangamble]

Disingenuous Fundy Said: "I tell you what would be easier for me believe. It would be easier for me to believe that I could take a 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, run the pieces through a shredder just to make assembling it a little more challenging (although this example doesn't even begin to approach the complexity of the simplest living organisms), then dump the contents of the shredder from atop a high skyscraper on a breezy day and expect all the shredded pieces to eventually fall perfectly in place on the ground to form the exact picture of the puzzle that was designed on the puzzle's box cover. After all, given enough Time + Luck + Chance, anything can happen, isn't this right? In this little analogy, we have all the ingredients necessary for belief in evolution. We have the Simple (fine shredded pieces), the Chaotic (confused, unorganized state of the shredded pieces + hostile environment), plus Time, plus Chance. Eventually, these millions of pieces would somehow assemble themselves so as to reveal their intended design. The only problem is: No one will be around to verify it! Just like macro-evolution is unverifiable.
*****************************************
If you watched the video posted by Rabid Ape, if you understand that "micro evolution" happens, then you accept that "macro-evolution" happens by default. The terms aren't even needed...they just mean evolution.

Of course, you most probably didn't watch the video, and if you did, you didn't even try to understand it.

Anything can't happen. There are things which the laws of physics and biology make impossible.

The fossil records verify "macro-evolution." But genetic biology is the best evidence for "macro-evolution" as pointed out in the video.

Chance/luck has a lot to do with species survival and changes in species.
The food chain is a perfect example of that, when one animal is added or taken away from the chain, almost all animals have to change their behavior/appetite etc. in order to survive within their ecosystem.
Then you have meteors, volcanoes and earthquakes, all of these could change the atmosphere as well.

If you want to call it chance or luck that a meteor hit the earth causing the earth's atmosphere to make it so that it killed off the dinosaurs, I'm fine with that.

The killing off of the dinosaurs opened the door for mammals, who only existed at that time as small rodent like creatures, to start taking over. And this led to man.

More on luck. We are here as a product of luck. How many viruses and war deaths did our individual ancestors have to have avoided, just for me to be here? All it would have taken is one great-great etc. grandfather or grandmother, etc to have not made it to procreation age.

And just think of the potential mates all our ancestors could have had instead of the ones they did have that led to us being here.

Not to mention the exact time our ancestors mated so that we would be here as individuals.

The same pair of parents produce different kids...I'm not my brothers or sister....I know it sounds strange.....but if my parents didn't do the nasty exactly when they did to produce me, I wouldn't have existed.

What are the odds?

150,000 ago when man first evolved on this planet...they would be beyond astronomical, but right now, because I do exist, the probability is 100%.

[boxcar]

An inquiring mind must ask: Just when did these "laws of physics and biology" come into existence?

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

An inquiring mind must ask: Just when did these "laws of physics and biology" come into existence?

Boxcar
A very good question. At least 13 billion years ago. And the idea of how and why they work opens the door to the possibility of a creator, but doesn't prove it.
In other words, it is not answerable today, but like lightning was finally explained to us mere humans, I'm pretty confident the answer doesn't require a creator and one day, it will be answered here on earth.

[so.cal.fan]

Cangamble, that which is non-linear is non-provable, it's in another paradigm.
Again, Creation and Evolution are one of the same.
Atheism is a narcissistic positionality. You can not prove their is no Divinity. You rationalize that your own Ego is God? Pretty lame.
An Agnostic position is more credible....you are at least saying, "I myself, cannot prove there is no God". This is an honest position. Agnostic is an honest position and often a path to God.
When your Consciouness reaches a high enough level....you are on the path to Enlightenment. You have a KNOWING there is a Divine Creator.

[Boris]

Sorry Boris, but I assumed Jesus existed and the Exodus happened for the first 40 years of my life.
And I used to be a believer in God when I was younger.
But evidence has changed my outlook.



If you were a believer in God, no "evidence" could have changed that. You were never a believer. You searched for something that would justify your doubts and desired behavior. You state you were a believer to appear more "enlightened" to others, as if you've found something. It's not eternal life, but I guess you're OK with that.

Good Luck

[Cangamble]

Cangamble, that which is non-linear is non-provable, it's in another paradigm.
Again, Creation and Evolution are one of the same.
Atheism is a narcissistic positionality. You can not prove their is no Divinity. You rationalize that your own Ego is God? Pretty lame.
An Agnostic position is more credible....you are at least saying, "I myself, cannot prove there is no God". This is an honest position. Agnostic is an honest position and often a path to God.
When your Consciouness reaches a high enough level....you are on the path to Enlightenment. You have a KNOWING there is a Divine Creator.
Actually, my stance is that there is no evidence for God or a supernatural being so I really don't need to consider if there is one.
Just like there is no evidence for Leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy.

I can't disprove either God, Leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy.

I'd like to think I'm atheist when it comes to Leprechauns and the Tooth Fairy as well.

[Cangamble]

If you were a believer in God, no "evidence" could have changed that. You were never a believer. You searched for something that would justify your doubts and desired behavior. You state you were a believer to appear more "enlightened" to others, as if you've found something. It's not eternal life, but I guess you're OK with that.

Good Luck
I was a believer. Not a religious believer but I always assumed there was a God. What I meant by evidence is that many holes that I attributed God could fill were filled by either fraudulent claims or scientific discovery.
I finally figured out that there was no reason to accept that God exists.

God is a crutch to give one hope for eternal life.

[boxcar]

A very good question. At least 13 billion years ago. And the idea of how and why they work opens the door to the possibility of a creator, but doesn't prove it.
In other words, it is not answerable today, but like lightning was finally explained to us mere humans, I'm pretty confident the answer doesn't require a creator and one day, it will be answered here on earth.

The "how and why the work" were two of my next questions. Also, did these laws exist before, during or after Chaos?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm embarrassed by the amount of young earth creations and lack of acceptance of evolution that infests a great nation like the USA. I'm Canadian and we do have creationists, but the numbers are a lot lower.Care to post a scientific study to back this claim (numbers are a lot lower)?

[PaceAdvantage]

Boxcar, I'm not threatened by creationists. Like I said, they are laughing stocks. But I welcome confrontations with them, because I am able to post what science is, and what science knows, and I'm not doing it for the wilfully ignorant like you...I'm doing it for those on the fence and those who haven't given it much thought.Coming from this third party observer who has nothing invested in either of you, it appears to me that you were unable to answer at least one of Boxcar's interesting questions. But, I have many posts to read here, so maybe I missed one or more of your responses.

Hey Boxcar, did he answer all of your questions and does he now have you walking into the light?

[Cangamble]

Care to post a scientific study to back this claim (numbers are a lot lower)?
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16178

For some reason Canada was not involved in the poll of Western countries (yet Turkey was)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html

Young Earth Creationist in the US make up around 40-45% of the population.
While in Canada it hovers around 20-25%.

Here is a comparison of the US to Canada:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:pxpFi36xoQYJ:www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/070706E.pdf+canadians+evolution+poll&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5

[Cangamble]

Coming from this third party observer who has nothing invested in either of you, it appears to me that you were unable to answer at least one of Boxcar's interesting questions. But, I have many posts to read here, so maybe I missed one or more of your responses.

Hey Boxcar, did he answer all of your questions and does he now have you walking into the light?
Check out post 55, and watch the video if you have the time, or you sincerely want to know how evolution works.

[PaceAdvantage]

Check out post 55, and watch the video if you have the time, or you sincerely want to know how evolution works.I take it from this response that you believe I either don't understand how evolution works and/or I am a "creationist?" Interesting...I don't believe I've ever stated my belief either way...

Just because I point out that I don't think you've answered Boxcar's main question adequately in no way should lead you to believe that I personally favor his belief system over yours, or vice versa.

[boxcar]

Coming from this third party observer who has nothing invested in either of you, it appears to me that you were unable to answer at least one of Boxcar's interesting questions. But, I have many posts to read here, so maybe I missed one or more of your responses.

Hey Boxcar, did he answer all of your questions and does he now have you walking into the light?

There is no light in CG -- all darkness. And, no, he didn't asnwer any of my questions satisfactorily.

CG wrote regarding the "laws of physics and biology":
A very good question. At least 13 billion years ago. And the idea of how and why they work opens the door to the possibility of a creator, but doesn't prove it.
In other words, it is not answerable today, but like lightning was finally explained to us mere humans, I'm pretty confident the answer doesn't require a creator and one day, it will be answered here on earth.

First a brief comment about the "laws of biology". Of all the science disciplines, there is perhaps none more wanting for quantitativeness than biology. These "laws" are very general. This is a discipine that needs a lot work in the math area. This discipline is very much unlike the exact sciences of physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

He also conceded that science doesn't know how or the why these work. Another brick wall.

Plus CG never answered this question of mine:

The "how and why the work" were two of my next questions. Also, did these laws exist before, during or after Chaos?

Another thorn in the side of evolution, and another example of how this belief system begs the question at every turn.

The Mr. 'Cap chimed in with:

I think that using
Originally Posted by Boxcar
"formula (Chaos + Time + Chance + Luck = Order/Design) for evolution prohibits macro-evolution from being proved.
is limiting the debate to "Order vs Chaos". Neither of which is clearly understood either mathematically or by common sense.

It's not limiting the debate. Rather, it is one of the pillars to the debate. This is a fundamentally important issue to which 'Cap conceded isn't really understood or quantifiable. His answer to this thorny problem is to sweep it under the rug or dismiss it.

And then in the same post he added:

Science is a testable philosophy. It measures and correlates observable phenomena. It does not necessarily search for ultimate truth.

How convenient. It's not all that concerned with "ultimate truth". Science, by its primary definition, is the "state of knowing" -- it's "knowledge distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding". Another blind alley.

And then one must ask just when was evolution observed and measured over all these millions of years?

Another fundamentally important issue that was totally ignored by GG was the Organic v. Inorganic aspects in my initial question. Just how and why did the Inorganic (inanimate) give birth to the Organic (animate)? How did that rock produce a turnip, for example? This is perhaps the biggest thorn in the side of evolution.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Boxcar

I've answered a lot more questions of yours than you have of mine.
You are a disingenuous Fundy. A laughing stock. Nothing more, nothing less.

But the lurkers know I've answered you. So keep beating your chest. If you are impressing yourself, you are dumber than beyond belief.

[Cangamble]

And rocks don't produce turnips. One of the videos I presented shows how life began from non life though.

There is nothing flawed with evolution theory. Only in your reality denying world there is.

[Cangamble]

I take it from this response that you believe I either don't understand how evolution works and/or I am a "creationist?" Interesting...I don't believe I've ever stated my belief either way...

Just because I point out that I don't think you've answered Boxcar's main question adequately in no way should lead you to believe that I personally favor his belief system over yours, or vice versa.
I didn't say that. I was ambiguous about what you believed. But if you felt that Boxcar's questions were good, I can only assume that you just might be a creationist with limited knowledge of evolution.

Am I wrong?

[Cangamble]

The "how and why the work" were two of my next questions. Also, did these laws exist before, during or after Chaos?
********************


I answered that question in an earlier post. For at least since the big bang, the laws of biology and physics have remained unchanged.

Before that, well that is debatable.

How do we know this. We can observe stars billions of light years away, and and that means we are watching the past, and the past goes by the same science laws as we have today.

[Cangamble]

The true reason, and the only reason. It is the BIBLE. His/her/its ire against science is just a smokescreen. He/she/it needs the bible to be literal or he/she/it would have to realize that his/her/its parents picked the wrong religion for him/her/it.

This video is so right on the money when it comes to God and the Bible. How could anyone use the Bible to basis for their perception of science? It is embarrassing to humanity that people like Boxcar do.

fnjfxCp92pc

[boxcar]

The true reason, and the only reason. It is the BIBLE.

No, the only reason I reject evolution is because it's intellectually bankrupt, it begs the question at every turn and therefore, logically terminates in Skepticism. Put that in your hash pipe and puff on it Mr. Direct Descendant of a brutish ape. In fact, with the social graces you have displayed on this forum, I'm beginning to think you were raised by one deep in some rain forest away from civilized man!

Boxcar

[wonatthewire1]

Wow, you guys should head over to Newsmax for some literature - I picked up these today so I can argue with these dopy evolutionists

http://www.discountbookdistributors.com/creationpack.aspx

:eek:

[Cangamble]

No, the only reason I reject evolution is because it's intellectually bankrupt, it begs the question at every turn and therefore, logically terminates in Skepticism. Put that in your hash pipe and puff on it Mr. Direct Descendant of a brutish ape. In fact, with the social graces you have displayed on this forum, I'm beginning to think you were raised by one deep in some rain forest away from civilized man!

Boxcar
I'm curious since you've never answered. How old do you think the earth is and when did man poof into existence? And what scientific findings back this up?

[Cangamble]

Wow, you guys should head over to Newsmax for some literature - I picked up these today so I can argue with these dopy evolutionists

http://www.discountbookdistributors.com/creationpack.aspx

:eek:
Please argue. The internet will be the death of the creationism movement.
Do you realize how many lurkers on this thread have changed their opinions?
It is happening all over.

Those who deny evolution are laughing stocks.

[wonatthewire1]

Please argue. The internet will be the death of the creationism movement.
Do you realize how many lurkers on this thread have changed their opinions?
It is happening all over.

Those who deny evolution are laughing stocks.


And when you are on your death bed asking God's forgiveness, he'll pull out a copy of this thread and say "YOU WISH, YOU HEATHEN!"

Then smote you over the head.

:jump:

[hcap]

I think that using
"formula (Chaos + Time + Chance + Luck = Order/Design) for evolution prohibits macro-evolution from being proved.
is limiting the debate to "Order vs Chaos". Neither of which is clearly understood either mathematically or by common sense.

Chaos is more complex than random outcomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. Chaotic behavior is also observed in natural systems, such as the weather. This may be explained by a chaos-theoretical analysis of a mathematical model of such a system, embodying the laws of physics that are relevant for the natural system.

So, the initial laws of a changing evolving phenomenon-not necessarily biological-give rise to myriad forms building on the initial conditions. Patterns similar to organic forms may be created using simple repeating mathematical formulae. Fractals are an example.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Fractal_fern1.png/150px-Fractal_fern1.png
"Fractal fern created using chaos game. Natural forms (ferns, clouds, mountains, etc.) may be recreated through an Iterated function system (IFS)."

It's not limiting the debate. Rather, it is one of the pillars to the debate. This is a fundamentally important issue to which 'Cap conceded isn't really understood or quantifiable. His answer to this thorny problem is to sweep it under the rug or dismiss it. If you look at branching patterns, trees, leaves, the circulatory system or the tree-like structure of the nervous system you might assume only organic systems share this distribution scheme. However non organic structures such as mountain ranges, river and tributary systems, and even geologic shapes of coastlines also share the same similar structures. Nature itself organizes itself in ways that appear chaotic from a "ground level point of view" but become less chaotic when viewed for a higher or larger viewpoint. Individual lines of the branching pattern viewed close up look random and chaotic, but seen as a part of a larger structure, that randomness is within limits of that larger organizing pattern. Looking at a small section of a fractal-observing a few jagged angles or undulating curves close up is deceptive. Sitting in the first row in a movie theater seeing up close a few pixels is missing the larger order. What appears as random may be dependent on our perspective. Common sense may be deceptive. Much depends upon where we sit.

Science may support complexity building upon simplicity by postulating the underlying laws of the universe support such phenomenon. The laws of the universe may be conducive to evolving systems that are self organizing. As I said science does not search for an ultimate truth. The fact that the universe is "self-organizing" does not omit or admit God. The first cause question is philosophical not within the realm of science. Did the laws of the universe arise by themselves, or by God? Science cannot answer this.

It says neither. It cannot know whether God is or is not responsible for those laws. That is where philosophy, religion and faith attempt to fill the gap.

"Science is a testable philosophy. It measures and correlates observable phenomena. It does not necessarily search for ultimate truth."

[boxcar]

'Cap, and from whence did these "initial conditions" come? Is matter eternal? Are these "initial conditions" eternal?

Boxcar

[hcap]

That cannot be answered by science. Science is quite good dealing with things that can be observed, and tested. Science has found relationships between and within matter and energy.

The question of first cause is larger. If you choose to try to answer the question of "why", awe and wonder-ironically emotions and not intellect may be a better approach to seeing something behind the veil of our own subjective shortcomings. But here we are all on shaky ground.

The problem that many of have with those who try to support a case for how the universe came into being through the literal interpretation of scripture, is that although you may construct a pleasing internally consistent picture, that picture has no factual connection to real world evidence. The mainstream tool of science. Certainly over the last 4 or 5 centuries evidence based on faith presented by religion has not panned out as advertised. But most religions have accepted the scientific method, including the earth is not flat, the sun is the center of the solar system and evolution exists. I don't think this has made religious people any less pious or has destroyed their faith.

Using science to explain God, is as difficult as using religion to build a computer. Both however may point to a larger reality.

.................................................. .......................

Btw, biology is not less "exact" than physics or chemistry. Biological processes depend for the most part-at least here on earth-on the chemistry of the carbon atom. Organic chemistry is well understood. It is testable and repeatable. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are direct real world results.

[Cangamble]

Science has found relationships between and within matter and energy.
*****************
E=M*C(squared)

The question about matter being eternal also leads to the question "is time eternal too" ?

But these questions have nothing to do with evolution that occurred on this planet since life began here around 4 billion years ago.

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”

“The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.”

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

-All Stephen Hawking Quotes

[hcap]

But these questions have nothing to do with evolution that occurred on this planet since life began here around 4 billion years ago.

So Box, how far back does your time-frame go. Are you willing to accept the age of the universe is measured in billions and not thousands?

[Cangamble]

So Box, how far back does your time-frame go. Are you willing to accept the age of the universe is measured in billions and not thousands?
I hope you realize the rules of "debating" Boxcar.

1. When Boxcar asks questions, you must answer to Boxcar's full satisfaction or the answer is meaningless.

2. You are allowed to ask Boxcar questions, but Boxcar doesn't doesn't answer questions.

[boxcar]

That cannot be answered by science. Science is quite good dealing with things that can be observed, and tested.

So by your definition, then, evolution isn't science, is it? Evolution would more accurately be portrayed as an ongoing police-like investigation conducted by a bunch of scientists who have been trying for all these many years to piece together what they think are the clues to life here on earth. And furthermore, these innumerable clues are all grounded in the over-arching assumption that evolution actually occurred because after all, life began somehow. It's either the consequence of supernatural or natural phenomena -- or a synthesis of the two. In fact, scientists' only investigative concern has been to keep reinforcing their propaganda upon the masses in terms of telling the world they have solved the mystery of "who done it" -- that is to say, evolution did it! But very often these investigators are lost for words to explain the "how", the "why", the "what" and the "when" of things.

Not only can't science answer from whence these "initial conditions" come, neither can they tell us what these "initial conditions" were. More brick walls.

Moreover, did these "initial conditions" themselves evolve? Are they, too, a product of evolution?

Elsewhere in the thread I likened scientists to cardsharps who can stack the deck at will. Once a model is erected, the mainstream scientific community will stop at nothing to squeeze more of their hypotheses into it to make their theory more palatable to the masses. Let's look again, at Wiki's "scientific" explanation of "chaos theory":

QUOTE:
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. Chaotic behavior is also observed in natural systems, such as the weather. This may be explained by a chaos-theoretical analysis of a mathematical model of such a system, embodying the laws of physics that are relevant for the natural system. (emphases mine)
UNQUOTE

So, this says that chaotic systems' behavior only "appear" to be chaotic -- but in "reality" they're not. These systems are "deterministic" in nature -- meaning essentially that the end results ("future dynamics") have been predetermined by their "initial conditions" -- conditions about which no one knows anything? These "initial conditions" somehow programmed themselves for a predetermined end? They programmed themselves to produce Order/Design out of Chaos? This, sir, is not science. It is pseudoscience. It's wanna-be science. It's make believe science. It's junk science. And what boggles my mind is how easily and eagerly evolutionists want to eat up this kind of claptrap. (I bet you aren't aware that you believe in predestination -- a la natural style, are you?)


Using science to explain God, is as difficult as using religion to build a computer. Both however may point to a larger reality.

No, it isn't. It's not a question of the level of difficulty. Man isn't capable of wrapping his mind around the immensity of God.

Btw, biology is not less "exact" than physics or chemistry. Biological processes depend for the most part-at least here on earth-on the chemistry of the carbon atom. Organic chemistry is well understood. It is testable and repeatable. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are direct real world results.

But neither the chemical or pharmaceutical industries can prove what mechanisms were at work in evolution. Therefore, I beg to differ. Read up on the "Laws of Biology". At best, they're very generalized for the most part.

Definition from the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary:

Main Entry:
exact science
Function:
noun
Date:
1843

: a science (as physics, chemistry, or astronomy) whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression

Note the conspicuous absence of biology in this medical definition. In fact, even Medicine itself isn't an exact science.

And from the Encarta dictionary:

exact science


ex·act sci·ence (plural ex·act sci·ences)


noun
Definition:

science involving precise measurements: a science such as physics that deals with precise quantifiable measurements


And from your friends at Wiki:

The term exact science refers to fields of science that are capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements.

In fact, it could even be argued that the phrase "exact science" is a misnomer. For example, how exact is exact? What if 10,000 controlled lab experiments were conducted all with the same results, but experiment #10,001 produced the exact opposite results?

Also, to say that some discipline is an "exact" science suggests exhaustible knowledge -- that even with Man's finite capabilities, he still knows all there is to know about?

Boxcar

[wonatthewire1]

Boxcar,

Maybe the best thing to do is to have Can keep taking chances with his voodoo stuff and then have God pass judgment on his socialist deathbed.

That is where the term "Rude Awakening" comes from!

__________________________________________

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

Maybe the best thing to do is to have Can keep taking chances with his voodoo stuff and then have God pass judgment on his socialist deathbed.

That is where the term "Rude Awakening" comes from!

To be sure, in the next life neither Heaven nor Hell will be home to any unbelievers.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Boxcar,

Maybe the best thing to do is to have Can keep taking chances with his voodoo stuff and then have God pass judgment on his socialist deathbed.

That is where the term "Rude Awakening" comes from!

__________________________________________

:lol:at socialist.
Jesus was a socialist if he existed that is.

[boxcar]

:lol:at socialist.
Jesus was a socialist if he existed that is.

"If he existed", Jesus was the quintessential example of what it means to be apolitical.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

In order to be considered science:



is liable to be falsified by data,
is tested by observation and experiment, and
makes predictions.
************************************
Lets look at the evolution of the cane toad's legs over the last 40 years in Australia just as a minor example.

Simple statement, the cane toads legs have grown larger and the cane toad is faster than it was 40 years ago because of evolution.

1. That statement could be falsified if the legs were not bigger or they were not faster than the ones from 40 years ago.

2. Luckily, there are still toads with unevolved legs that still hang out but by researching their genetic makeup, it can be found that there are now genetic differences in the toads DNA and RNA.

3. A prediction could be that the legs will continue some more growth over the next few generations or that the toads with shorter legs will come closer to extinction in the next 50 years.

That is science.

[Tom]

You have an un-natural interest in toads.
And you deny Jesus, but then think you know his politics?
Man, you need some proffesional help.

[boxcar]

In order to be considered science:



is liable to be falsified by data,
is tested by observation and experiment, and
[ makes predictions.
************************************
Lets look at the evolution of the cane toad's legs over the last 40 years in Australia just as a minor example.

Simple statement, the cane toads legs have grown larger and the cane toad is faster than it was 40 years ago because of evolution.

1. That statement could be falsified if the legs were not bigger or they were not faster than the ones from 40 years ago.

2. Luckily, there are still toads with unevolved legs that still hang out but by researching their genetic makeup, it can be found that there are now genetic differences in the toads DNA and RNA.

3. A prediction could be that the legs will continue some more growth over the next few generations or that the toads with shorter legs will come closer to extinction in the next 50 years.

That is science.

Not it isn't. It's pure, umitigated unadulterated horse manure! Talk about wanting it both ways -- el quicko evolution in very a very short time span and the forever variety which no one can verify. "Micro Evolution" happens all the time. More appropriately, it should be called genetic adaptation.

Micro-evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a shuffling of current genetic information to adapt to changing environmental conditions. For example, a study of Cane toads in Australia revealed that over a span of 70 years, the toads with longer legs tended to survive because they could run and leap farther and faster, thereby avoiding becoming some animal's lunch. Consequently, the shorter legged toads died out. All of the toads had it within their genetic structure to develop longer legs, so whenever the occasional toad would be born with a dominant “longer leg” gene, he would have an advantage over his brother toads, tend to survive and then pass that dominant gene onto his tadpoles and before you know it, the whole Cane toad population “micro-evolved” longer legs.

Similarly, if you put some dogs on an island where the climate was too cold for their fur, eventually a dog will be born with a dominant gene for thicker fur and he will survive, pass that gene onto his puppies and over time you will see that the dogs will have “micro-evolved” thicker fur. This is the same thing that was observed in the Galapagos Islands with regards to Darwin's finches. Certain finches developed different shaped beaks over time that helped them adapt to the types of food available. In all of these cases with the finches, the toads, the dogs etc., the changes they experienced were already built into their genetic codes. That is critical to remember. At no time did a single piece of new, ADDITIONAL genetic information develop in any of these cases. It was merely a shuffling of EXISTING genetic information. (Remember that, you'll see why soon)

This “Micro-evolution” is fully accepted by Creation Scientists. It has always been seen as an example of God's brilliance in creating all life forms with more genetic information than they use at any given time. This allows them to adapt to various environmental changes in order to survive. This is the sign of a smart God.

http://toptenproofs.com/article_evolution.php

What this boils down to, simply, is genetic adaptation to environmental changes.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You have an un-natural interest in toads.

Maybe I gave him too much credit by assuming he was a direct descendant of an ape. He most likely never evolved that high up on the chain.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

You have an un-natural interest in toads.
And you deny Jesus, but then think you know his politics?
Man, you need some proffesional help.
I do know a lot about the similarities of Jesus in the bible and his political leanings.

I also have a keen interest in knowledge. I guess that is something that doesn't come naturally to psychiatrist wannabes like you :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Cangamble]

Boxcar, if you watched Rabid Ape's video you would know that if you accept microevolution, you accept macroevolution by default.

Welcome aboard.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[boxcar]

Boxcar, if you watched Rabid Ape's video you would know that if you accept microevolution, you accept macroevolution by default.

Welcome aboard.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Genetic adaptation to environmental changes is not the same as macroevolution. Click on the link I provided and read the material. There are big differences.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I do know a lot about the similarities of Jesus in the bible and his political leanings.

I bet what you know could easily pass through the eye of a needle. :rolleyes:

I also have a keen interest in knowledge. I guess that is something that doesn't come naturally to psychiatrist wannabes like you :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yeah, I bet, just as it's written:

2 Tim 3:7
7 ...always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NASB

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Genetic adaptation to environmental changes is not the same as macroevolution. Click on the link I provided and read the material. There are big differences.

Boxcar
Sorry, I don't do Fundy websites when it comes to science. Show me a science web site that uses your definition for what evolution is.

Besides, Rabid Ape near the end of his video explains once again that if you believe in micro evolution, you believe in macroevolution by default.

Welcome aboard.....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Cangamble]

Genetic adaptation to environmental changes is not the same as macroevolution. Click on the link I provided and read the material. There are big differences.

Boxcar
".....there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.........

Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence"


http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

[boxcar]

Sorry, I don't do Fundy websites when it comes to science. Show me a science web site that uses your definition for what evolution is.

For someone so big on knowledge, as you have boasted; you certainly are close-minded, aren't you? For good reason, I suspect. The truth would probably destroy you.

But by all means, please feel free to keep in touch; for we want to be kept apprised of really great scientific breakthroughs with respect to evolution.

Macro-evolution is what is currently being taught today as the explanation for the origins of humanity. For those Cane toads to “Macro” evolve, they would need to evolve into a completely different species. So here's the dirty little secret the evolutionists don't like talking about. There is no evidence anywhere on the Earth, nor has there ever been any evidence of any animal Macro-evolving into a completely different kind of animal. The finches stayed finches, the toads stayed toads. If the kind of evolution being taught to us now were true, those toads would evolve into non-toads, maybe a bird or possibly eventually a lizard or perhaps a cow someday.

For this to happen (and here comes another dirty little secret), the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with NEW, ADDITIONAL genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind. That's right. In all of the testing being done in all the laboratories and zoos by scientists worldwide, there has never once been an example of even one animal giving birth to an offspring with new, additional genetic information. Only a shuffling or a duplication of existing genetic information. So if the evolutionists are right, we are forced to believe that for billions of years, life has evolved from amoebas in the oceans all the way up through the food chain, growing and increasing in complexity and design, adding new genetic information generation after generation in millions of species for millions of years, but suddenly today....it stops. Now that we have the modern technology, laboratories, scientists and the cameras rolling so we can see it for ourselves, it just suddenly (and coincidentally) doesn't happen anymore. It really does take more faith to believe in evolution than Creation.

Make darn sure you let us know when a cow gives birth to a calf ,or a dog gives birth to a pup, or a cat to a kitten, etc. with new additional genetic information.

Besides, Rabid Ape near the end of his video explains once again that if you believe in micro evolution, you believe in macroevolution by default.

Were you bitten by this creature, by chance? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

I've been to creationist websites and heard all the gibberish from the reality deniers like yourself. No need to go there unless you will point me to the answer to the following:

If microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, then what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

All creationist nonsense sites do is redefine science as it tries to poke holes in evolution theory.

No science is used, no science papers are done. Nothing but gibberish.

Oh, and now you are repeating the same lie. No evidence?:lol::lol::lol::lol:

The whale video shows evidence. You mean no evidence that you Fundy reality deniers will accept. Lets be honest now disingenuous Fundy laughing stock.

[boxcar]

".....there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.........

Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence"


http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

Hey, Ape Man, I just answered this in my last post. Macroevolution never occurred because no scientist at any time, anywhere, under any circumstances has ever observed new, additional genetic information in any animal's offspring. In short, there is absolutely no rock-solid evidence that some animal evolved into some different kind of animal. Considering that this macroevolution takes a gazillion years to finally manifest itself, one would think that we'd be able to observe this kind of evolution just by simply observing almost on a daily basis, throughout all these years, the existence of new, additional genetic material in some animal's offspring. Where is this kind of evidence?

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Hey, Ape Man, I just answered this in my last post. Macroevolution never occurred because no scientist at any time, anywhere, under any circumstances has ever observed new, additional genetic information in any animal's offspring. In short, there is absolutely no rock-solid evidence that some animal evolved into some different kind of animal. Considering that this macroevolution takes a gazillion years to finally manifest itself, one would think that we'd be able to observe this kind of evolution just by simply observing almost on a daily basis, throughout all these years, the existence of new, additional genetic material in some animal's offspring. Where is this kind of evidence?

Boxcar
Fossil records and genetic mapping prove you wrong, Fundy Laughing Stock.

[boxcar]

Fossil records and genetic mapping prove you wrong, Fundy Laughing Stock.

Fossil records? That's a joke. The fossil records actually support creationism! :bang: :bang:

Provide real current, modern day scientific proof that some animal has produced offspring with new, additional genetic material. If we're supposed to swallow the horse pill that Animal X can evolve into Animal Y, i.e into an entirely different species , then this is the kind of rock-solid evidence we should be seeing on an ongoing basis. Anything less than this, makes you the laughing stock, Ape Man!

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Fossil records? That's a joke. The fossil records actually support creationism! :bang: :bang:

Provide real current, modern day scientific proof that some animal has produced offspring with new, additional genetic material. If we're supposed to swallow the horse pill that Animal X can evolve into Animal Y, i.e into an entirely different species , then this is the kind of rock-solid evidence we should be seeing on an ongoing basis. Anything less than this, makes you the laughing stock, Ape Man!

Boxcar
Sorry Fundy. It is your turn to provide scientific proof.
Show a scientific study that proves that fossils support creationism.
And also answer this question:

If microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, then what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

[Cangamble]

This is a portion of a larger video. Biologist Dr. Ken Miller is a Catholic, who helped the courts in Dover see that Intelligent Design is a scam. This is a short video which shows once again, that reality deniers like Boxcar are laughing stocks:

q9a-lFn4hqY

[boxcar]

Sorry Fundy. It is your turn to provide scientific proof.
Show a scientific study that proves that fossils support creationism.
And also answer this question:

If microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, then what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

Forget the fossil record. You're the one who deviated from my argument that science has never recorded new, additional genetic information being passed on to the offspring of its animal parent . There should be libraries full of science books written about this kind of rock-solid evidence, if it existed, because this would go an awfully long way in establishing a high probability for one species evolving into a different one. There should be lots of evidence like this out there. Find it and get back to us -- but only after you treat your rabies -- because you're deliriously out of your mind.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Forget the fossil record. You're the one who deviated from my argument that science has never recorded new, additional genetic information being passed on to the offspring of its animal parent . There should be libraries full of science books written about this kind of rock-solid evidence, if it existed, because this would go an awfully long way in establishing a high probability for one species evolving into a different one. There should be lots of evidence like this out there. Find it and get back to us -- but only after you treat your rabies -- because you're deliriously out of your mind.

Boxcar
"science has never recorded new, additional genetic information being passed on to the offspring of its animal parent"

You really have paid zero attention to anything on this thread. You are a wilfully ignorant laughing stock.

You can't forget the fossil record. Now answer the question:
If microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, then what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

[Cangamble]

On average, humans are born with 4 genetic mutations not found in their family tree. That is new information.

[Cangamble]

Scientists have not observed new information????
Another creationist lie:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

[boxcar]

"science has never recorded new, additional genetic information being passed on to the offspring of its animal parent"

You really have paid zero attention to anything on this thread. You are a wilfully ignorant laughing stock.

You can't forget the fossil record. Now answer the question:
If microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, then what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

Simple. With the former there's simply been a reordering or reshuffling of the existing genetic material. When a species of animal genetically adapts to its environment, that change capability is built into its existing genetic code or information. Nothing new has been added. That frog who genetically adapted longer legs due to environmental conditions is still a frog.
Those finches who genetically adapted their beaks are still finches, etc., etc.


Also, to borrow one of your favorite phrases, the "laws of biology" would, in all probability, prohibit species' crossovers. This is why no new, additional genetic information has ever been found in any offspring of some animal. Yet, according to evolutionists, the evidence for same should be in abundant supply. But where is it? Surely, macroevolution is still alive and well, isn't it?
If it is, then we should be able to observe the process incrementally -- one step at a time.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Wrong. Genetic information was added in the nylon example. How did that happen? It was not reshuffling.

Read the link I provided.

[boxcar]

Scientists have not observed new information????
Another creationist lie:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Well, here's one scientist who debunks this nonsense:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/01/feedback-new-information

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

"laws of biology"

4 genetic mutations happen on average to every newborn baby.

New information. Not reshuffling.

[Cangamble]

Well, here's one scientist who debunks this nonsense:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/01/feedback-new-information

Boxcar
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
No scientific studies cited. Just gibberish. And no. Zero mention of the nylon eating bacteria.

Do you have a science source that refutes that the nylon bug gained new information?????
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Cangamble]

Remember. I'm not doing this to "convert" the wilfully ignorant laughing stock named Boxcar.

I'm doing this for the lurkers.

Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html
Complicated

The Nylon Bug (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm)

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

In case you missed it.

Are Mutations Harmful? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Complicated, but if you read it and understand it, you will see that new information does happen.

[Cangamble]

iGFvK77Fsz8

[boxcar]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
No scientific studies cited. Just gibberish. And no. Zero mention of the nylon eating bacteria.

Oh...you mean just like that site you linked us to that never specifically addressed my initial question. :rolleyes:

Do you have a science source that refutes that the nylon bug gained new information?????
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Try this one for size. :rolleyes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Try this one for size. :rolleyes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

Boxcar
UPDATE: Don Batten of "Answers In Genesis" writes on "The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste" in the Technical Journal, Vol. 17, Issue 3 (December 2003) From http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp?vPrint=1


(http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp?vPrint=1)

"However, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance. ..." Batten's article is dismantled a plank at a time by Ian Musgrave in the Talk.Origins Post of the Month for April 2004, "Nylonase Enzymes", http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html .

Musgrave's bottom line:

"Generation of the nylon hydrolysing genes is standard 'mutation followed by selection.' The AiG article shows once again how poor their understanding of both biology and evolutionary theory is. "

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm http://www.nmsr.org/rainbar.gif

[boxcar]

UPDATE: Don Batten of "Answers In Genesis" writes on "The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste" in the Technical Journal, Vol. 17, Issue 3 (December 2003) From http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp?vPrint=1


(http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp?vPrint=1)

"However, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance. ..." Batten's article is dismantled a plank at a time by Ian Musgrave in the Talk.Origins Post of the Month for April 2004, "Nylonase Enzymes", http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html .

Musgrave's bottom line:

"Generation of the nylon hydrolysing genes is standard 'mutation followed by selection.' The AiG article shows once again how poor their understanding of both biology and evolutionary theory is. "

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm http://www.nmsr.org/rainbar.gif

Just what is the probability, Mr. Ape Man?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Lots of recent evidence has proven that the second chromosome in H. sapiens extacly matches a fusion of two chromosomes from the great apes accounting for the total chromosomal difference of that extra set in our hairy primate relatives.

Wikipedia has an explantion of it. Hard to disprove the correlation.

[equicom]

Cangamble... I understand how evolution theoretically undermines the commonly taught religious philosophy about creation, but how exactly does it undermine the possibility of there being a God?

Why is evolution actually considered as support for atheism, rather than simply as something that potentially debunks the creationist mythology?

Just because the (fundamentalist) creationists may be wrong does not necessarily disprove the existence of God.

[Cangamble]

Cangamble... I understand how evolution theoretically undermines the commonly taught religious philosophy about creation, but how exactly does it undermine the possibility of there being a God?

Why is evolution actually considered as support for atheism, rather than simply as something that potentially debunks the creationist mythology?

Just because the (fundamentalist) creationists may be wrong does not necessarily disprove the existence of God.
And where in this thread or any place did I say that evolution proves atheism or evolution undermines the possibility of God.
It is Fundy cretards that say this.

An atheist simply says that there is no evidence that God exists or ever existed so why even entertain the thought that there might be a God. You can't disprove God, like you can't disprove the idea that Leprechauns had at least once existed on this planet, or that there is an invisible man under my bed who does absolutely nothing.

An atheist is someone who answers the question "Do you believe in God" with a NO.

What evolution does is take away a few more gaps that God might be hiding in.
For example, our ancestors couldn't explain lightning, so they thought that God or something else supernatural was responsible for it.

The big problem for bible literalists is that they think that evolution can't be correct because it would mean their bible is wrong, and if their bible is wrong, they at least picked the wrong religion....which of course, is something they can't deal with, so they become wilfully ignorant.

[Cangamble]

Lots of recent evidence has proven that the second chromosome in H. sapiens extacly matches a fusion of two chromosomes from the great apes accounting for the total chromosomal difference of that extra set in our hairy primate relatives.

Wikipedia has an explantion of it. Hard to disprove the correlation.

Yep. Back to Catholic biologist Dr. Ken Miller for a explanation of what you posted (only 4 minutes, and very enlightening):
zi8FfMBYCkk

[boxcar]

Lots of recent evidence has proven that the second chromosome in H. sapiens extacly matches a fusion of two chromosomes from the great apes accounting for the total chromosomal difference of that extra set in our hairy primate relatives.

Wikipedia has an explantion of it. Hard to disprove the correlation.

And just what preciesely distinguishes apes from humans?

Boxcar

[Tom]

What's the over/under on how many post in a row the original creationist's nightmare will come up with?

[equicom]

And where in this thread or any place did I say that evolution proves atheism or evolution undermines the possibility of God. It is Fundy cretards that say this.

Oh, well... fair enough then. I actually thought the whole point of atheism was to prove that there is no God, but if the only point is to prove that you don't believe in God, I guess that's something entirely different.

Then again, I don't see why you'd actually bother. I mean, I think it's great that you're educating the masses to the ridiculousness of treating the bible as a literally factual account of world events, but at the same time this seems above and beyond the call of duty if all you really intend is to declare that you - as an individual - do not believe in God.

I believe that while it may be impossible to prove the existence of the God made famous in the bible, or even quite easy to disprove that concept, it is quite another thing to suggest that matter sprang forth from nothing.

I say that because there has to be something which is eternal (and therefore supernatural) because the laws of physics are quite explicit on the fact that you can't get more energy out of something than you put into it. Since all matter is potential energy, it has to come from somewhere.

[PaceAdvantage]

Next time you folks want to go on an evolution/creation binge, do so without all the hostilities....thanks...