Who's lying now?

[CommonEnlightenment]

="CommonEnlightenment"]="deluxe"quote="ImprobableJoe"]Deluxe, what is your degree in, and where did you get it?

Is this were you are nothing, unless you have been indoctrinated , by the education system?
That is the same position taken by some religious leaders, that think that they are the only ones that know what is going on because they took the schooling. Yet really know nothing about the bible. After all aren't they the ones that tell you that the the earth and life was only 6 days old?


Indoctrinated on what exactly? Using the best methodology available to establish reality? If that's what YOU are calling indoctrination, in this specific sense, then I have no problem being indoctrinated. If you are going to try to shoehorn this specific case into other areas of life without proper evidence then I can see that we are going to disagree.

It is my opinion that in order to resolve issues one must have a firm grasp of what is REAL, what is FAKE, and what could be partially real or partially fake based on the best available evidence. Provide a different methodology that best fits reality. Go ahead, we are all waiting for it.

I'm not saying the scientists have done and accomplished many things. The things we are discussing now is a result of the scientists work.
There have been fakes and frauds in with the scientists.There is a real pressure and desire to find the next big break through. When your dealing with people in any field you will find this kind of thing. So I'm not going to dwell on those.

Indoctrination. You are taught in school about 'evolution' , you have to write exams on it. You go to university, people and teachers think it is a real thing, you write more exams. You don't put on your paper 'evolution' is crap. Now you want a job. On your resume' you don't say 'evolution' is crap. Now you have a job, you know you are only going to get recognized for your work, if you some how, add new info to the 'evolutionary' field. That's how you get the prize. The rewards.
All of this, with no real answer from a creation stand point. Actually the religious side to more harm to themselves, because of being hypocritical, and explaining things, that make God look bad.

So that how indoctrination is done.

YOU seem to be missing the point.

PROVIDE a methodology that best describes reality more coherently than the scientific method.

 

[deluxe]

Ok, good, so we've established that.

Moving on then.

Could you then tell us what you make of the fossil record and the geological column?

Yes that what we should get into now.

So I will give you the start to life, has just happened somehow. ( this is what the scientists do)
So you have the first life.
So what was it, and what was the first 'evolving' it did? ( I ask this because I get different answers to this.)
What I am really asking is pick a starting point.

 

[Laurens]

Okay seeing as you aren't answering my question, I'm going to assume that like most creationists you accept microevolution.

In case you do want to clarify this, I'll even provide a definition:

mi,·cro,·ev,·o,·lu,·tion
   [mahy-kroh-ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., -ee-vuh-]
1.
evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
2.
minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution

Do you accept this as being a real phenomena?

Now seeing as you ignored my question, I am going to carry on assuming that you do accept it, but if not then I apologise, but I have kinda given up hope on getting an answer...

Earlier you stated that you don't have a problem with the Earth being old:

The earth could be billions of years old. I don't know how accurate the scientists dating is but, the universe being billions of years old is in harmony with the creation account.

Now assuming you accept the definition of microevolution, and that the Earth could be billions of years old, then I think I would be safe in assuming that you accept macroevolution seeing as:

Macroevolution = microevolution + billions of years

Given that you accept that the Earth could be billions of years old, and assuming that you accept microevolution, then you should have no trouble accepting macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply the result of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time.

If you don't accept macroevolution then could you give a scientific reason as to why this should be?

You accept the time scales involved, and I assume you accept the processes of microevolution (you'd have to be in deep deep denial if you don't), so am I right in assuming you accept macroevolution as well, seeing as it basically consists of these two factors? If not explain why.

 

[Gnug215]

</B></COLOR>

deluxe, could you tell us how old you think the Earth is?

The earth could be billions of years old. I don't know how accurate the scientists dating is but, the universe being billions of years old is in harmony with the creation account.

<COLOR color="#00FF00"><B>

Ok, good, so we've established that.

Moving on then.

Could you then tell us what you make of the fossil record and the geological column?

 

[Squawk]

Stating "evolution is crap" will get you thrown out of the classroom, for obvious reasons.

Showing that evolution is crap, however, will win you a nobel prize.

Best of luck.

 

[Laurens]

Ok, good, so we've established that.

Moving on then.

Could you then tell us what you make of the fossil record and the geological column?

Uh oh we're only one step away from the big green font now

 

[australopithecus]

Actually some have admitted here that the scientist really do not know how life started. And they at this point they do not even have any good stories about that. That's why they have 77 ideas.

Dishonest bullshit and strawman. Those 77 papers I posted are 77 examples of evidence that support various theories of abiogenesis. No one is talking about 'stories', we're talking about evidence. The Bible is a story, evidence is not. Though I suppose you must have trouble telling the difference.

The reality is the same for 'evolution'

The first thing you have know about 'evolution' is the scientists do not know what a species is!!

Quote mining wikipedia (again) is not a refutation and it is dishonest. A species, at it's most basic, is a population that cannot produce fertile offspring with a member of an outside population. Your ability to selectively read and take things out of context is nearly superhuman. :facepalm:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

="CommonEnlightenment"]="deluxe"quote="ImprobableJoe"]Deluxe, what is your degree in, and where did you get it?

Is this were you are nothing, unless you have been indoctrinated , by the education system?
That is the same position taken by some religious leaders, that think that they are the only ones that know what is going on because they took the schooling. Yet really know nothing about the bible. After all aren't they the ones that tell you that the the earth and life was only 6 days old?


Indoctrinated on what exactly? Using the best methodology available to establish reality? If that's what YOU are calling indoctrination, in this specific sense, then I have no problem being indoctrinated. If you are going to try to shoehorn this specific case into other areas of life without proper evidence then I can see that we are going to disagree.

It is my opinion that in order to resolve issues one must have a firm grasp of what is REAL, what is FAKE, and what could be partially real or partially fake based on the best available evidence. Provide a different methodology that best fits reality. Go ahead, we are all waiting for it.

I'm not saying the scientists have done and accomplished many things. The things we are discussing now is a result of the scientists work.
There have been fakes and frauds in with the scientists.There is a real pressure and desire to find the next big break through. When your dealing with people in any field you will find this kind of thing. So I'm not going to dwell on those.

Indoctrination. You are taught in school about 'evolution' , you have to write exams on it. You go to university, people and teachers think it is a real thing, you write more exams. You don't put on your paper 'evolution' is crap. Now you want a job. On your resume' you don't say 'evolution' is crap. Now you have a job, you know you are only going to get recognized for your work, if you some how, add new info to the 'evolutionary' field. That's how you get the prize. The rewards.
All of this, with no real answer from a creation stand point. Actually the religious side to more harm to themselves, because of being hypocritical, and explaining things, that make God look bad.

So that how indoctrination is done.

I went to school, and to university. Never in that whole time did I write an exam on evolution. Not once. Not even in the biology classes.

What did happen in those biology classes is I learned something about the nature of living organisms, and once you do that evolution is an inescapable conclusion. I'll give you an example... in one of my favorite classes, Plagues, we studied ebola outbreaks. If you're in an ebola outbreak, your chances of survival are actually excellent. No really, it's true; but only if it's been going on for a few weeks. However, if you're one of the first people to get it... you're doomed.

You see, it's not very beneficial for a virus to kill its host (and especially not kill it quickly), as once you're dead you're not very likely to spread it around much. But ebola is not a human virus, it's normal host is (most probably) some type of bat, and the virus is attuned to bat biology. So unfortunately it kills us quite readily. As the outbreak goes on, however, for some reason the virus stops being so very lethal. What reason could that be? It's almost as if the virus is evolving. This is just one example. Yersinia pestis (more commonly known as plague), doesn't just infect humans but a number of other animals. It is actually possible to make the bacteria more lethal by letting it loose in a population of rodents a few hundred times in a row so that it evolves to rat biology and thus entirely looses much of it's ability to coexist with human biology. How do we know? Because the Japanese actually did this as part of their bio-weapons program, and it worked (just ask the Chinese.) And don't get me started on the HIV virus, which couldn't even exist if it didn't evolve so rapidly.

This is the sort of thing that actually causes people to accept evolution.



And as a side note: try reading one of your posts out loud sometime. The main reason we know you didn't go to college is because you would have flunked the first class you were expected to write a paper for - whatever the topic.

 

[deluxe]

Okay seeing as you aren't answering my question, I'm going to assume that like most creationists you accept microevolution.

In case you do want to clarify this, I'll even provide a definition:

Oh yes I remember reading that.
What I believe is that there are mutations, (they are mistakes so generally not good), adaptations, breeding, natural selection.

I don't use the term 'microevolution' that's sort of like asking you, do you believe in a miniGod?

The problem I see with the scientists they will label something, years later, the meaning of that label changes.

I use the word 'kind ' ( for example, mankind)I don't know what the limits to that are. But the scientists don't know what a species is, so were in the same boat on that one.

 

[deluxe]

Now assuming you accept the definition of microevolution, and that the Earth could be billions of years old, then I think I would be safe in assuming that you accept macroevolution seeing as:

Macroevolution = microevolution + billions of years

Given that you accept that the Earth could be billions of years old, and assuming that you accept microevolution, then you should have no trouble accepting macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply the result of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time.

If you don't accept macroevolution then could you give a scientific reason as to why this should be?

You accept the time scales involved, and I assume you accept the processes of microevolution (you'd have to be in deep deep denial if you don't), so am I right in assuming you accept macroevolution as well, seeing as it basically consists of these two factors? If not explain why.

I want to get into the science part of this now.
I would like to start , at after the first bit of life. So I'm asking what was the first bit of life, that 'evolution' started from?

I'm out for about 4 hrs now , I'll be back.

 

[Laurens]

Okay seeing as you aren't answering my question, I'm going to assume that like most creationists you accept microevolution.

In case you do want to clarify this, I'll even provide a definition:

Oh yes I remember reading that.
What I believe is that there are mutations, (they are mistakes so generally not good), adaptations, breeding, natural selection.

I don't use the term 'microevolution' that's sort of like asking you, do you believe in a miniGod?

The problem I see with the scientists they will label something, years later, the meaning of that label changes.

I use the word 'kind ' ( for example, mankind)I don't know what the limits to that are. But the scientists don't know what a species is, so were in the same boat on that one.

So you accept the processes of evolution, and the time scales required for macroevolution to occur.

So in essence, logically you should have no problem accepting macroevolution. Seeing as it is mutations, adaptations, and natural selection over long periods of time which you claimed to accept in another post.

Can you give any legitimate scientific reason as to why you should reject evolution then?

From what you have said, you should have no trouble accepting it, but apparently you do, on what is this based?

 

[Laurens]

I want to get into the science part of this now.
I would like to start , at after the first bit of life. So I'm asking what was the first bit of life, that 'evolution' started from?

I'm out for about 4 hrs now , I'll be back.

We don't know exactly, although I am confident we will have more answers within the next 10-20 years.

The chemistry that makes up life, is not magic, or impossible it requires a few basic elements from the periodic table, mainly Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Sulphur - with a bit of Calcium (for our bones) and stuff... These elements can react with one another to form the long chains and big molecules required for life to function. These reactions can occur naturally, there is no reason why we should consider the origin of life to be impossible without magic.

The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing in organic chemistry or biology that prevents life originating without magical guidance. In fact given that chemistry permits life, it would be surprising if it didn't happen somewhere.

Please explain why the origin of life could not have occurred naturally. Is there a special law of chemistry that has eluded us, that prevents Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Sulphur reacting with each other to form bigger and bigger molecules? What is it that makes the origin of life via natural means so impossible? Do explain.

 

[nasher168]

What I believe is that there are mutations, (they are mistakes so generally not good), adaptations, breeding, natural selection.

Then you believe in evolution! Seriously, that is all evolution is. Mutation, natural selection to weed out those less well-adapted and propagate those better adapted, inheritance of traits. There is really nothing more to it. Okay, it gets a little more complicated when we start to look at populations and the mechanics on a larger scale... but all that follows entirely naturally from acceptance of the very things you just said.

Oh, and FYI, mutations are generally neutral. Every child inherits many mutations and doesn't generally suffer any ill effects. Sometimes they are negative, and the individual is less well-adapted. They are then likely to be removed from the gene pool. Beneficial mutations, however rare they might be, are then the ones more likely to be passed on.

I use the word 'kind ' ( for example, mankind)I don't know what the limits to that are. But the scientists don't know what a species is, so were in the same boat on that one.

For the purposes of this thread, I will define "species" as "a group of organisms able to reproduce with one another to produce fertile young" unless anyone has a better definition to put forward.
This definition doesn't account for asexual organisms or complications with horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes. But it represents all mammals, reptiles, birds fish and flowering plants (unless there are asexual examples in those?) so for now, it should be good enough.

 

[Squawk]

LOL
How did I not see that coming. The reference to the definition of species not being accurate was an attempt to lend credibility to the notion of kind.

Just brilliant. Now, lets look at this from a different perspective. Why do we wish to define species (then genus, order, family etc)? We do it primarily for convenience, we wish to apply labels to aid with understanding, to enable classification. It's useful for me to be able to differentiate between cats and dogs.

I picked cats and dogs here for a reason. Those labels are assigned retrospectively. The dogs are all decendents of a given species (and actually all from a given individual), somewhere in the deep past. We don't place an exact point in history for that ancestor, its an irrelevance, because the whole label is arbitrary, much like the label of mammal, or cat.

Species is the only strictly defined taxonomic level, and then with various conditions. We require a sexually reproducing species, and we must factor in such things as sexual selection and geographic separation. A species, though, with the proper constraints, is defined as a population through which gene transfer can occur.

That such labels must come with criteria attached is indicative of something, and it's amusing that you miss it. That thing is that life is a continuum, the set of genes being of such scope that it can be seen as a continuous variable, and it's just human nature to attempt to apply discreet classificaiton to it.

You can't and won't be able to apply a definition of kind because I can always show you an example that renders your definition idiotic. You can't do that with a definition of species, because the caveats are already built in.

So, your clever deception is yet another point against you, not that you will accept it.

#edit
Nasher, me and you are evidently different species by your definition

 

[nasher168]

Nasher, me and you are evidently different species by your definition

Well it might be a lot of trouble, but I would argue that you and I could have a fertile child ( D: ) if we were that way inclined and had sufficiently advanced technology to somehow create a nucleus in a donated egg cell containing half my genome and half yours.

In fact if we really wanted to, we could maybe try putting mitochondria from one of us into the egg as well. That way one of us can be the mummy. :twisted:

Come on Squawk, let's make a baby!​

 

[Thomas Doubting]

ewww :|
it is none of our business what you guys do in your bedro.. i mean laboratory :mrgreen:

 

[Welshidiot]

@ deluxe

I'd like to get to the root of what you are arguing here.

It would appear that you wish people to accept that nobody knows how life started, or whether there's any such thing as evolution. (please forgive me if I am mistaken, or being obtuse)

That would appear to leave us with a gap in our knowledge.....

So would you have us fill that gap in our knowledge with the word of the Christian Bible?

Please do not reply to this post if you're not deluxe​

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Oh but Mr. Squawk which taxonomy scheme are we using here? I think it might behoove Mr. Deluxe to review a few of the well established systems.

Biological Taxonomy (Linnaean)
Phylogenetic Taxonomy.

In Mr. Deluxe's defense I can see how it can be confusing. I just can't think of a better remedy than a proper education.


I think I see the same issue with trying to classify some stars or planets for that matter.....


I think I might sense a creationist sticking point here.

 

[Snufkin]

I want to get into the science part of this now.
I would like to start , at after the first bit of life. So I'm asking what was the first bit of life, that 'evolution' started from?

I'm out for about 4 hrs now , I'll be back.

What's needed is something that can reproduce and pass on its traits - which I guess would be a primitive cell.

 

[Gnug215]

Attention Deluxe!</B></COLOR></SIZE>

deluxe, could you tell us how old you think the Earth is?

The earth could be billions of years old. I don't know how accurate the scientists dating is but, the universe being billions of years old is in harmony with the creation account.

<SIZE size="150"><COLOR color="#00FF00"><B>

Ok, good, so we've established that.

Moving on then.

Could you then tell us what you make of the fossil record and the geological column?