Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[nemesiss]

Hi nemesiss, you should be able to agree with these statements (even if you are an ardent atheist or evolutionist)
1. If the Earth and Sun are only thousands of years old, then Darwin's theory of how life on Earth diversified must be false
2. Regardless of what other evidence supports or undermines an old earth, if Darwinism is false, it is therefore not evidence of an old Earth.

Dear mr Enyart,
unfortunately i would have to disagree with you on this.

nemesiss, thanks for chatting. I'll leave this where it is for now. Hope you're okay with that.

-Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/caterpillar

Dear mr Enyart,
i do not mind if you would leave it at that, though i think it would be fair (and to create closure for the other participans of this topic) what the reasons are why you would like to leave it at that.

as one one point i would stress you to give your opinion on, is how would you meassure the age of the earth?
That you find issue with an old earth (as i already stated), i do not mind. Even if you have good reasoning to reject 4.6 Billion as an age... it doesn't mean 6000 years is the default.
i want to hear from you, how you would address this task. it does not have to be lengthy, a short describtion should be fine.
this might in the eyes of some give you some credibility, that they do not see you as some lying piece of smegma.
In conversations like these, i assume that the other person is honest and i want to give them the oppertunity to present that

 

[BobEnyart]

Hi nemesiss, you should be able to agree with these statements (even if you are an ardent atheist or evolutionist)
1. If the Earth and Sun are only thousands of years old, then Darwin's theory of how life on Earth diversified must be false

If by Darwin's theory you mean universal common descent, you are correct.

Thank you hwin. Of course, we disagree completely, but I appreciate an actual assessment of the point being made.

Having a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth does pose a problem for some aspects of evolutionary theory. However, that would in no way contradict natural or sexual selection, which were the theories Darwin actually proposed.

hwin, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you that creationists fully endorse natural selection. All of the leading creation ministries, and all the creationists that I am aware of, support natural selection because, as you went on to state, it is observed (which is the basis of the scientific method). Also, we've often pointed out that creationists before Darwin believed in natural selection. Thus the disagreement arises not over NS, but over Darwin's proposal for something that goes far beyond natural selection. Natural selection is a CONSERVATION mechanism. It kills off the less fit and thereby conserves what is more fit in a given environment. Breeders can't grow ever taller and taller plants. There are constraints within genomes. When natural selection kills of sighted fish trapped in a dark cave, it has not created new biological information (which is necessary for Darwin's worm-to-man type evolution), but has efficiently conserved the part of the genome needed for survival in the dark.

Because NS conserves what exists, if unique enzymes are needed to create the unique fatty acids in a dolphin's melon, that could help us test the plausibility of Darwinism. The "melon", that is, the bump on the dolphin's head, focuses sound waves sort of like the way telescopes focus light, except that the melon uses the physical properties of different kinds of specially arranged, unique amino acids to bend the sound waves to enhance the echolocation of dolphins and some whales. So, let's say that the enzymes required to make these unique fatty acids are themselves unique. Then, evolution would have had to originate those enzymes before it could use them to aid the dolphins' hearing. And here's the test. What if such enzymes are made of lengthy sequences that would not arise by pure chance in the lifetime of a trillion, trillion universes. Those enzymes would themselves then need Natural Selection to come into existence. But Natural Selection cannot "look ahead" to plan. That is, it can't think: if only I had these certain enzymes, then I could manufacture these fatty acids, and use them to focus sound waves. Therefore, NS has nothing to "select" until such enzymes are already in existence to make these acids. Evolutionists will use an off-the-shelf, but fundamentally unresponsive, argument that claims that those enzymes, or ones very similar to them, were probably in use somewhere else in the domains of life, and were co-opted. Even if that were true, those predecessor enzymes would have then had to arise somewhere. And then this same problem is just as real there, because that argument doesn't solve, but only punts, the problem. Further, in life, there are unique and astounding enzymes, many of which are catalysts which speed up necessary-for-life chemical reactions, and some of those reactions would take thousands of years without the enzymes, yet they are needed for life to exist.

Thus, and here's what many evolutionist never even face up to hwin, NS cannot "make" new features but it conserves existing features. And it especially could not make not features that would require multiple intermediary useless steps like producing wildly unlikely enzymes, to produce fatty acids the dolphin doesn't otherwise use, to begin to produce them in a bulge in the top of the head, and only then find them of value if different such acids get arranged in a specific physical arrangement so that they will focus sound waves onto a the dolphin's receiver.

So, creationists have identified and supported natural selection for longer than Darwinists have. And yes, as you agreed to this one small point (thank you hwin), IF the Earth were young, that would mean that Darwin's claim that the fossil record and natural selection explain for the diversity of life on Earth is false.

-Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/epigenetics

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Wow, you really do not know diddly about squat.

No one has ever claimed that natural selection could make new features; again, you constructed a straw man. However, until you answer my simple question, I think I will just leave our conversation as it is.

This reminds me, the first thing I usually ask a creationist when engaging them is to define evolution in its biological context. When I posed this to YesYouNeedJesus, he refused to answer (which was telling). BobEnyart, perhaps with your years of creationist research below your belt, you would be able to give the correct definition of evolution

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

hwin, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you that creationists fully endorse natural selection. All of the leading creation ministries, and all the creationists that I am aware of, support natural selection because, as you went on to state, it is observed (which is the basis of the scientific method). Also, we've often pointed out that creationists before Darwin believed in natural selection. Thus the disagreement arises not over NS, but over Darwin's proposal for something that goes far beyond natural selection. Natural selection is a CONSERVATION mechanism. It kills off the less fit and thereby conserves what is more fit in a given environment.

No. Wrong! Why would it be a conservative mechanism? If an organism is born more fit, wouldn't Natural Selection favor them in ways that it would not favor the others?
But for some reason you won't go there, there is this invisible limitation in your head that somehow blocks everything that is not convenient to your narrative.
So no, you don't endorse natural selection.

Breeders can't grow ever taller and taller plants.

Yes they can, within certain constraints, and they have.

There are constraints within genomes.

There are constraints and genomic is not one of them, well technically it is because the way things grow is encoded in the genome. The constraints are bound to the environment, if trees could grow so tall that they would collapse under their own weight, then that would be a limit, however if you were to plant them on a planet with less gravity they could keep on going. Genome is just circumstantial.

When natural selection kills of sighted fish trapped in a dark cave, it has not created new biological information (which is necessary for Darwin's worm-to-man type evolution), but has efficiently conserved the part of the genome needed for survival in the dark.

You have no idea what a bad example this is, and how it hurts your point more than anything.
If you say that natural selection kills sighted fish destroying information, but has conserved the parts of the genome that is needed for survival in the dark, then wouldn't that mean that the sighted fish had those needed parts to survive in the dark?
If so, why did they die? What was the role of natural selection here?
But this is irrelevant because sighted fish do not have the same hunting mechanisms as cave fish. And if you are appealing in this case that cave fish had evolved from sighted fish (by a loss of information), while almost every other fish was magically spawned by God, then why not just say that the cave fish was also magically spawned by God as every other fish?
How do you tell the difference? Can you tell the difference?

The problem with arguing with uneducated people is that you are going round and round in circles with question begging nonsense, arguing about who said what without understanding what is being said or the consequences of what is being said, and frankly know too little to be able to come up with a significant contribution beyond what was at the arms reach of a 12th century farmer. Actually worse, because a 12th century farmer would be able to tell you why they don't eat all the best produce.
Now stop peddling the debunked argument that there are no beneficial mutations, that there is no addition to the genetic material. Because frankly it is too late for that, you have been given examples of that before and you only come out as a dishonest prick.

And all your arguments to dismiss anything else seem to be based on the presuposition that the universe is only 6000 to 10000 y.o. (just after the invention of booz). How could you possibly have come up to that conclusion if not from a presupositionalist biblical view?

 

[Inferno]

When natural selection kills of sighted fish trapped in a dark cave, it has not created new biological information (which is necessary for Darwin's worm-to-man type evolution), but has efficiently conserved the part of the genome needed for survival in the dark.

Interesting, Bob, very interesting. I do have a few questions though, just about this one sentence:
1) I have never seen nor heard of a creationist defining information. Well, that's not quite true. William Dembski defined it in his book "No Free Lunch" as -log2 p, but that definition is so vague that even crystallization can fit that definition.
So my first question is: What is information? How do you define it? And if you do, as every other creationist I have ever encountered, "define" it as "the origin of new structures", then you need to answer the second point:

2) What are new structures? One site you link to, Bob, says "a different and improved set of vital organs". But what is "a set of vital organs"? "Wings" aren't vital, but they are what makes a bird a bird. What is different, what is improved? If evolution is correct, can one species be said to be "better" than another one?
So to my already existing challenges, add this: Give us some idea what an addition of information would entail and how we could recognize it. I'll give you a few examples, just say "yes" or "no", or if none of them would suffice say why.

• Fish developing feet/arms

• A mutation in a human gene that protects them against certain forms of HIV

• The adaptation of yeast from a glucose-rich environment to a glucose-limited environment

• Finding a fossil horse with wings

• E. Coli (can normally not thrive on lactose) adapts to survive on it

• Finding what Kirk Cameron dubbed the "Crocoduck"

• A single-celled organism evolving into a multicellular organism

• A gene is deleted, which now allows a species to use sugar as a food

• A gene is added which allows a species to thrive in a low phosphate chemostat environment

• A gene is added which allows humans to throw fire out of glands in their hands

• A fossil of a snake with functional legs

• A Homo Sapiens fossil dated to 4 million years ago

• Artificial DNA that exhibits the same characteristics of real DNA

Which of those would qualify? In other words, what would prove evolution right? And what, if found, would actively disprove evolution?
And if you agreed to one and I could show you that it actually exists, would you accept evolution and recant creationism? Similarly, if you gave me mostly examples that evolution would not and could not allow to occur, would you accept that you don't understand evolution and let me school you? And if that rare case occurs and you give me all the right answers and I can't provide the examples, then I will immediately shut up and agree that you have bested me.
How's that for a deal?

 

[Frenger]

Dear Bob.

After reading this thread, it has come to my attention that the two times you have understood yourself to be wrong, thanks to the rebuttals of Austra and Nemisis, you simply ask that the conversation stops there.

My question to you is, why doesn't that set off an alarm bell? Doesn't that indicate something pretty piss poor about your ability to accept criticism? If I were to be really patronising (and I'm going to be) I would ask, why doesn't that tell you something about your intellectual maturity?

How many times in the past, when confronted with your own intellectual shortcomings have you simply ended the conversation and walked away? Probably emptying your brain in the bin as you leave?

These are not the actions of a man seeking any kind of truth I'm familiar with. These are the actions of a brat trying to look the smartest in the room.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If by Darwin's theory you mean universal common descent, you are correct.

Thank you hwin. Of course, we disagree completely, but I appreciate an actual assessment of the point being made.

Having a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth does pose a problem for some aspects of evolutionary theory. However, that would in no way contradict natural or sexual selection, which were the theories Darwin actually proposed.

hwin, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you that creationists fully endorse natural selection. All of the leading creation ministries, and all the creationists that I am aware of, support natural selection because, as you went on to state, it is observed (which is the basis of the scientific method). Also, we've often pointed out that creationists before Darwin believed in natural selection. Thus the disagreement arises not over NS, but over Darwin's proposal for something that goes far beyond natural selection. Natural selection is a CONSERVATION mechanism. It kills off the less fit and thereby conserves what is more fit in a given environment. Breeders can't grow ever taller and taller plants. There are constraints within genomes. When natural selection kills of sighted fish trapped in a dark cave, it has not created new biological information (which is necessary for Darwin's worm-to-man type evolution), but has efficiently conserved the part of the genome needed for survival in the dark.

Because NS conserves what exists, if unique enzymes are needed to create the unique fatty acids in a dolphin's melon, that could help us test the plausibility of Darwinism. The "melon", that is, the bump on the dolphin's head, focuses sound waves sort of like the way telescopes focus light, except that the melon uses the physical properties of different kinds of specially arranged, unique amino acids to bend the sound waves to enhance the echolocation of dolphins and some whales. So, let's say that the enzymes required to make these unique fatty acids are themselves unique. Then, evolution would have had to originate those enzymes before it could use them to aid the dolphins' hearing. And here's the test. What if such enzymes are made of lengthy sequences that would not arise by pure chance in the lifetime of a trillion, trillion universes. Those enzymes would themselves then need Natural Selection to come into existence. But Natural Selection cannot "look ahead" to plan. That is, it can't think: if only I had these certain enzymes, then I could manufacture these fatty acids, and use them to focus sound waves. Therefore, NS has nothing to "select" until such enzymes are already in existence to make these acids. Evolutionists will use an off-the-shelf, but fundamentally unresponsive, argument that claims that those enzymes, or ones very similar to them, were probably in use somewhere else in the domains of life, and were co-opted. Even if that were true, those predecessor enzymes would have then had to arise somewhere. And then this same problem is just as real there, because that argument doesn't solve, but only punts, the problem. Further, in life, there are unique and astounding enzymes, many of which are catalysts which speed up necessary-for-life chemical reactions, and some of those reactions would take thousands of years without the enzymes, yet they are needed for life to exist.

Thus, and here's what many evolutionist never even face up to hwin, NS cannot "make" new features but it conserves existing features. And it especially could not make not features that would require multiple intermediary useless steps like producing wildly unlikely enzymes, to produce fatty acids the dolphin doesn't otherwise use, to begin to produce them in a bulge in the top of the head, and only then find them of value if different such acids get arranged in a specific physical arrangement so that they will focus sound waves onto a the dolphin's receiver.

So, creationists have identified and supported natural selection for longer than Darwinists have. And yes, as you agreed to this one small point (thank you hwin), IF the Earth were young, that would mean that Darwin's claim that the fossil record and natural selection explain for the diversity of life on Earth is false.

-Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/epigenetics

At the risk of being thought to be, if not actually accused of, flogging a dead horse, might I add my own protest at the poverty of your response to He_Who_Is_Nobody's points.

Are you seriously suggesting that nothing can improve through natural selection??!

If that is the case then mankind cannot have cultivated crops such as cereals from wild grasses, or fruits (modern bananas from wild bananas) and vegetables; nor through husbandry, bred better livestock - whether cattle for meat and/or milk, or horses (from shire horses to thoroughbreds), not to mention different breeds of dog, including here-to-fore non-existent ones like the Dobermann Pinscher.

It was these very observations that led Darwin, on his return to England, to come to his theory of evolution.

For if man could breed new, better animals and new, better crops, then he was harnessing something which was inherent within Nature itself.

And if you're going to claim that "no new information is created", how do you know that that information isn't already there in the first place - thus allowing creationists' so-called "macro-evolution"?

And your belief in a 6,000 year old Earth/Cosmos is simply untenable, being erroneously based on reading into the Bible something which isn't there.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[BobEnyart]

Wow, you really do not know diddly about squat.

No one has ever claimed that natural selection could make new features; again, you constructed a straw man.

hwin, except for Master_Ghost_Knight, who posted right below you. He said that of course natural selection creates new features.

However, until you answer my simple question, I think I will just leave our conversation as it is.

This reminds me, the first thing I usually ask a creationist when engaging them is to define evolution in its biological context. When I posed this to YesYouNeedJesus, he refused to answer (which was telling). BobEnyart, perhaps with your years of creationist research below your belt, you would be able to give the correct definition of evolution

hwin, "THE" correct definition? You can't even get that from Richard Dawkins. Over the years I've notice that even when a creationist uses standard biology textbook definitions of evolution, critics around them will laugh like hyenas in response. Thus, what I've noticed is that "THE" only "CORRECT" definition of evolution is almost anything other than what a creationist happens to say at the moment.

Yet, whereas fools rush in where wise men fear to tread, in an attempt at dialogue, I'll not look one up but give you a definition for evolution in my own words. And of course, as you requested I'll define the word in terms of biology (though even for doing so, creationists are mocked, as most famously by Dobzhansky), so that I offer this definition of Darwinian, as opposed to stellar, artistic, etc., evolution:

Evolution is the process, as described by Darwin's theory in its modern neo-Darwinian form, by which Earth's many varied organisms have originated by way of descent with genetic modification from a common ancestor, such that original single-celled organisms have been transformed via natural selection over time into today's diverse forms of life.

Now, let the cackling begin.

-Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/caterpillar

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

hwin, except for Master_Ghost_Knight, who posted right below you. He said that of course natural selection creates new features.

I would disagree with him. The thing that creates new features would be mutations (for the most part), which in turn are acted upon by natural selection.

hwin, "THE" correct definition? You can't even get that from Richard Dawkins. Over the years I've notice that even when a creationist uses standard biology textbook definitions of evolution, critics around them will laugh like hyenas in response. Thus, what I've noticed is that "THE" only "CORRECT" definition of evolution is almost anything other than what a creationist happens to say at the moment.

I frankly do not care what you think Dawkins cannot give. There is a correct biological definition of evolution. I also doubt you have given the correct definition of evolution in its biological context based on my years of dealing with creationists.

Yet, whereas fools rush in where wise men fear to tread, in an attempt at dialogue, I'll not look one up but give you a definition for evolution in my own words. And of course, as you requested I'll define the word in terms of biology (though even for doing so, creationists are mocked, as most famously by Dobzhansky), so that I offer this definition of Darwinian, as opposed to stellar, artistic, etc., evolution:

This comes out in your definition, but even here, you use loaded terminology. You keep using the word Darwinian in place of biology. I do not understand that.

Evolution is the process, as described by Darwin's theory in its modern neo-Darwinian form, by which Earth's many varied organisms have originated by way of descent with genetic modification from a common ancestor, such that original single-celled organisms have been transformed via natural selection over time into today's diverse forms of life.

Inside your convoluted definition of evolution lies the actual definition of evolution. It appears you have mixed in evolutionary theory with the biological definition of evolution (you do know that those are two different things, right?).

Now to show you that I was not playing games either, here is where I defined evolution for another creationist on this forum a year ago:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]I will define evolution as I learned it back in my high school college prep biology class. It was defined as the change in allelic frequency in a population over time. Quoting the dictionary like you did, would have lost you five points on our midterm and final. I see Inferno has already linked to "Berkeley: Evolution 101", a great primer source and scalyblue has already posted the infamous "Mostly courtesy of FloydA and chimp_ninja" picture, so there is no point in repeating that.

That is why I think I will just quote some authoritative sources at you, since you seem to believe that an authoritative source is how to handle my question.

Wikipedia[/url]"]Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

That is from the first line of the article. Does it look familiar to what Inferno, scalyblue, and I posted?

Conservapedia[/url]"]The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

Wow, Conservapedia agrees that in biology evolution is defined the way I, and others, have already stated?

CreationWiki[/url]"]Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Another creationist source that gives the same definition for biological evolution that is used by us silly evolutionists. It also goes as far as to call it an observed scientific fact. Imagine that.

This gets to the heart of my real problem with creationists, such as yourself. Just five seconds of research on their own sources would give them the correct answer, yet none of them can ever seem to be bothered to do so. Instead, creationists would rather proudly proclaim their ignorance of any given subject, as if that was some sort of an accomplishment in and of itself. Not only that, they think that somehow, that ignorance they have is an argument against the subject being discussed.

To be honest with you BobEnyart, if I were grading a quiz with your answer given, I would cross out the extra bits and give partial credit. However, I would have expected the correct answer, without the extra bits, from someone that has studied the subject for years. Now, let us go back and correct your definition by removing all the loaded language and misunderstandings:

Evolution is the process, as described by Darwin's theory in its modern neo-Darwinian form, by which Earth's many varied organisms have originated by way of descent with genetic modification from a common ancestor, such that original single-celled organisms have been transformed via natural selection over time into today's diverse forms of life.

All right, now we are getting somewhere. That is the definition of evolution. Now, do you agree that this happens?

Now, some back tracking. Sorry, this will be cutting your post quite a bit. It was very convoluted and the main thrust was just an argument from incredulity.

Breeders can't grow ever taller and taller plants. There are constraints within genomes.

Citation please, because as I understand it the constraints are physiological not genetic.

When natural selection kills of sighted fish trapped in a dark cave, it has not created new biological information (which is necessary for Darwin's worm-to-man type evolution), but has efficiently conserved the part of the genome needed for survival in the dark.

This statement is meaningless until you define information (as Inferno pointed out). Just an example, perhaps the reason the fish lost their sight was due to an insertion, which would mean the fish gained new nucleotides. The loss of sight could have also happened from an inversion, which means it did not lose or gain any new nucleotides, they just swapped.

Because NS conserves what exists, if unique enzymes are needed to create the unique fatty acids in a dolphin's melon, that could help us test the plausibility of Darwinism... So, let's say that the enzymes required to make these unique fatty acids are themselves unique. Then, evolution would have had to originate those enzymes before it could use them to aid the dolphins' hearing. And here's the test. What if such enzymes are made of lengthy sequences that would not arise by pure chance in the lifetime of a trillion, trillion universes.

I doubt anyone would claim that these enzymes had to occur in one generation. All that is needed is that an enzyme, which helped focus sound better came about from a mutation. This enzyme just needs to focus sound 1% better than the tissue, which originally surrounded it. That enzyme would have been passed down at a higher rate than what was there before because it helped focus sounds just a little better (it could have been the difference between two extra fish a day). Repeat this step for thousands of generations and one would end up with something we see today.

Evolutionists will use an off-the-shelf, but fundamentally unresponsive, argument that claims that those enzymes, or ones very similar to them, were probably in use somewhere else in the domains of life, and were co-opted.

As you can read above, I did not use that argument. I used small steps slowly evolving to get what we see today.

Thus, and here's what many evolutionist never even face up to hwin, NS cannot "make" new features but it conserves existing features.

Again, I know that. Mutations bring about new features and natural selection is what weeds out the bad ones. This is simple stuff.

And it especially could not make not features that would require multiple intermediary useless steps like producing wildly unlikely enzymes, to produce fatty acids the dolphin doesn't otherwise use, to begin to produce them in a bulge in the top of the head, and only then find them of value if different such acids get arranged in a specific physical arrangement so that they will focus sound waves onto a the dolphin's receiver.

I think I know what you are trying to say here, but the example I gave above address this. It would have started with a mutation that helped dolphins focus sound just slightly better than before. After that, small mutation selected for over thousands of generations could give us what we see today in dolphins.

However, this is all beside the point. The example you gave above is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. BobEnyart, you are basically saying that you do not understand how the melon dolphins use could have come about through natural causes, therefore a god(s) must have created it. This is nothing more than a logical fallacy, because even if we did not know how the melon formed, jumping to the conclusion that a god(s) created it is not the solution either.

And yes, as you agreed to this one small point (thank you hwin), IF the Earth were young, that would mean that Darwin's claim that the fossil record and natural selection explain for the diversity of life on Earth is false.

Yet nothing you have provided thus far has shown the earth to be young. Simply because you keep stating something does not make it so. Furthermore, the fossil record was thought to be evidence of an old earth long before Darwin ever stepped foot on the Beagle. In addition, it also does not matter (except for historians) who came up with natural selection first. I bet there were hundreds of people that came up with it before Darwin; it is not that hard of a process to understand. However, Darwin was the first one to publish it in the scientific arena, which is why he is the famous one.

Edit: Corrected a mistake, which was pointed out by Dragan Glas.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I don't see any point continuing a discussion about the Bob Enyart debate on the thread about the Bob Dutko debate. After I take the time to at least skim over the 50 pages of the peanut gallery thread, which includes your sickeningly long replies (and I say that out of respect, not disdain), then I may make a post myself.

Seeing as how this thread now appears to be a new place to discuss BobEnyart/AronRa's debate, perhaps you would like to continue our discussion.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Wow, you really do not know diddly about squat.
No one has ever claimed that natural selection could make new features; again, you constructed a straw man.

hwin, except for Master_Ghost_Knight, who posted right below you. He said that of course natural selection creates new features.

No. What I said was this:

No. Wrong! Why would it be a conservative mechanism? If an organism is born more fit, wouldn't Natural Selection favor them in ways that it would not favor the others?

What creates new features is mutation and recombination trough descent.
This is of course irrelevant since my post was after yours, and not before.
However I do not feel the need to flog you over this issue, unless it is used as an excuse to evade the issue or to missunderstand what is being said.

I know that you feel drowned in this forum, but I really do like an answer to the question. What is your basis to believe that the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old?
Since you have used this to try and dismiss everything else.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

He_Who_Is_Nobody, just a minor point...

Again, I know that. Mutations bring about new features and natural selection is what weeds out the good ones. This is simple stuff.

This should be "weeds out the bad ones".

Other than that, keep up the good work!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[nemesiss]

hwin, "THE" correct definition? You can't even get that from Richard Dawkins. Over the years I've notice that even when a creationist uses standard biology textbook definitions of evolution, critics around them will laugh like hyenas in response. Thus, what I've noticed is that "THE" only "CORRECT" definition of evolution is almost anything other than what a creationist happens to say at the moment.

Yet, whereas fools rush in where wise men fear to tread, in an attempt at dialogue, I'll not look one up but give you a definition for evolution in my own words. And of course, as you requested I'll define the word in terms of biology (though even for doing so, creationists are mocked, as most famously by Dobzhansky), so that I offer this definition of Darwinian, as opposed to stellar, artistic, etc., evolution:

Evolution is the process, as described by Darwin's theory in its modern neo-Darwinian form, by which Earth's many varied organisms have originated by way of descent with genetic modification from a common ancestor, such that original single-celled organisms have been transformed via natural selection over time into today's diverse forms of life.

Now, let the cackling begin.

-Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/caterpillar

Dear mr Enyart,

That the definition by certain creationists is considered "INCORRECT", is that schools do not serve their students well on that subject. it's known that in the USA teaching evolution is at this point of time does not happen or pretty poor, atleast on the highschool level. At university level it gets more time to proper explained.
if you get a poor explenation, it's pretty tough to understand the subject in a decent manner (regardless of the subject)
Some just create their own definition by what they heard at church, by the preacher, who in most cases also has no understanding what evolution means. And some just create their own definition, with no understanding of the subject.

a question which shows poor understanding of evolution is;

if humans evolve from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

another comment that shows poor understanding of evolution is;

i did not evolve from a fish!

if you wish you could hold a survey on what people understand evolution and how they learned it.


Why Richard Dawkins isn't willing to give a defintion of evolution, i cannot speak for him.
What i assume what a decent reason might be, is that he might not find the neccesary, that is should be common knowledge. most people will ask him questions about evolution, but when you do not even know what evolution is, you are wasting his and your own time. another way of looking at it is; if your not willing to invest the time to learn, then you will not understand the answer he gives.
this would be like asking a mathmatician ( who is not your teacher), who multiplication tables work or asking author what the use is of a book.

the description you've given, may not be perfect, but it certainly not the worst and for common conversation i would say it is passable.
there are some parts i would adjust and i will explain why.

Evolution is the process, as described by Darwin's theory in its modern neo-Darwinian form, by which Earth's many varied organisms have originated by way of descent with genetic modification from a common ancestor, such that original single-celled organisms have been transformed via natural selection over time into today's diverse forms of life.

1. i would remove "as described by Darwin's theory".
This is because the neo-darwinian form has "evolved" so far that they are no longer the same.
The hint for that is the word neo, which i assume you know means 'new' in latin.

2. i would change the word 'been transformed' with 'diversified'.
the reason is that transformation has a different meaning, then what i think you think it means.
the changes what we talking about in evolution is not on a personal level, but on a species level.
insects such as butterflies have transformation, be it from larve to coccoon to it's adult form, but that is not evolution.
if you wish me to be more specific on this, that can be arranged.
additionally, the word diverse at the end of the sentence can be removed if you'd make this change/

3. i would add 'and sexual selection' at the end of 'natural selection'.
the reason for this that natural selection isn't the only part of how species can diversify.

4. i would remove "such that original single-celled organisms"
the first reason i would remove it , is that it's unneccesary.
the second reason, is that can create the illusion that evolution allows the possibility that a single cell life form can give rise to a complex multi cellular organism (such as humans, dogs, dinosaurs, etc..) within a single generation.

5. one could remove "Earth's" from the first sentence.
this is because at this point of time, we have not yet discovered life on other planets, which makes the word unneccesary.
an intersting discussion could be held on the subject of bacteria and other single cell life forms, that have be transported by us unintentionally to Mars, but that is a different topic.

with the changes i would make, it would become ;

Evolution is the process,in its modern neo-Darwinian form, by which Earth's many varied organisms have originated by way of descent with genetic modification from a common ancestor and have diversified via natural selection and sexual selection over time into today's forms of life.

additionally, i would still like to have an explenation for why you felt it nessecary to end our previous conversation on the subject of the link between the age of the earth and evolution.

 

[BobEnyart]

Wikipedia[/url]"]Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

hwin, thanks for not cackling. Have you considered that it's possible to define an idea in overly broad terms as a way of making it more easily defensible, and as a way of making it appear like there is less scientific descent against it than there actually is?

For example, the 3,000 PhD scientists, who are listed online by name, who reject secular Darwinism, would all agree hwin with the definition you posted above.
EDIT: hwin, I need to rewrite that statement...
For example, the 3,000 scientists and professors (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees who have been identified by Dr. Jerry Bergman and named online would all agree with the definition you posted above, as would the Intelligent Design movement, and as would the more than 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution." I discuss this in response to Lawrence Krauss claiming falsely that all scientists are Darwinists. The 3,000 are listed by name, degree, and specialty, in the pdf at http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html and you can find the Harvard research in the pdf at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...33XYUM8Vg&sig2=Lx09Lcf6hBpXyhwRdD71lQ&cad=rja

Further, even the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists who are voting members of the Creation Research Society agree with the definition you've posted above.

Imagine if racists defined racism as a belief that there are differences between the human "races", and you concurred with that statement, so everyone started saying: See, hwin is a racist, and all scientists are racists. Would that in anyway be helpful?

If some religious people said that Christianity is a belief in Jesus, and they asked, Do you believe that Jesus existed?, and you (or some atheist), said yes, and they said: See, you're a Christian!, that wouldn't be helpful either.

Examples like this could abound. And they don't lead to understanding and helpful discussion of the differences. If you want to define evolution in such a way that you agree with creationists, then fine. You can do that. But then you'll have to come up with another concept or term that distinguishes you from creationists.

That definition above, that you posted, leaves out a common ancestor. So, if you have no objection to a biology professor who promotes evolution, but denies common ancestors and the appearance of new vital organs, etc., then you and I are in agreement.

But does that really help us? Of course this is one of the longstanding difficulties in communication between evolutionists and creationists. So, if any of what I've just written is valid, and for you to agree in the slightest with it, would take a lot of fortitude.

Thanks hwin,

-Bob Enyart
http://kgov.com/krauss2

 

[australopithecus]

For example, the 3,000 PhD scientists, who are listed online by name, who reject secular Darwinism, would all agree hwin with the definition you posted above.

Appeal to authority. How many of those are biologists?

 

[australopithecus]

Oh oh. The cheerleader is back.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

... if you've been on a Dino dig with people who think Dino bones they find smell like bones then they're either lying to you, or mentally ill.

So are Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer lying or mentally ill? Looking forward to your response.

 

[australopithecus]

... if you've been on a Dino dig with people who think Dino bones they find smell like bones then they're either lying to you, or mentally ill.

So are Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer lying or mentally ill? Looking forward to your response.

Interesting that's the one sentence out of the myriad of sentences I've posted in this thread you've chosen to comment on.

... if you've been on a Dino dig with people who think Dino bones they find smell like bones then they're either lying to you, or mentally ill.

I've highlighted the salient point. When did Bob go on a dig with either of them? But I'll address your diversionary tactic with this post that you've dutifully ignored.

Correlation does not equal causation, Robert. You provided nothing but anecdote, and automatically assumed a position because it, seemingly, validates your own. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Firstly, even if we ignore for a second that any supposed smell can be accounted for by any number of explanations other than the bones (local environmental chemistry, for example)...actually, let's not ignore that. Let's not also ignore the fact that the "smell" might be psychosomatic on the part of those at the area. Basically, let's not ignore any factors that account for any perceived smell.

As you're making the positive claim that the smell exists it's up to you to provide the evidence it does. Evidence, not anecdote.

Funnily enough, Bob decided to bail out at that point.

Now I refer you to the Remine thread where you can address MKG's refutation.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Interesting that's the one sentence out of the myriad of sentences I've posted in this thread you've chosen to comment on.

... if you've been on a Dino dig with people who think Dino bones they find smell like bones then they're either lying to you, or mentally ill.

I've highlighted the salient point. When did Bob go on a dig with either of them?

So let me get this straight. (I don't want to miss your salient point.) Someone who digs up dinosaur bones and says they smell like bones is only mentally ill or lying if they are accompanied on their dig by Bob Enyart?

 

[Inferno]

I've highlighted the salient point. When did Bob go on a dig with either of them?

So let me get this straight. (I don't want to miss your salient point.) Someone who digs up dinosaur bones and says they smell like bones is only mentally ill or lying if they are accompanied on their dig by Bob Enyart?[/quote]

The point was that Bob's pointing to hearsay as "evidence", even though we've educated him on the standards of evidence quite a few times.