Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I listened to the video, thanks.
Repay the favor and carefully read the page at this link:
Sandwalk: A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Creationist are Liars"...? When they Steamroll Darwinian Evolution
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
I listened to the video, thanks.
Repay the favor and carefully read the page at this link:
Sandwalk: A chemist who doesn't understand evolution
nPeace
Veteran Member
I believe I understand why atheistic evolutionist are hell bent on establishing the theory of evolution, and disproving God and the Bible (Those do exist right? - Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil Degrasse Tyson...imo).
If tomorrow, the theory of evolution were proved beyond all shadow of a doubt, we would
Since it isn't proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, then what is wrong with a person saying that they don't see the evidence that it is, nor accepting it, and asking that it be thoroughly investigated, rather than say, 'This is it.'
To me the picture seems clear, maybe it's because I am looking at it as it is. I don't know.
The Lawrence Krauss(es) tell us straight up, what it's about (We only have to listen to, and watch them speak, and debate).
Christians live their lives according to their faith.
What men say or don't say, do not stop them from doing so, but that faith requires them to speak against what they consider untruths - when it is called for.
The way I see it, it's not very different from atheist who feel they must speak disparaging of the Bible and God.
What is so difficult to understand?
Do we realize that in schools this is forced on children.
What is being suggested that Christian parents and children do?
Should they keep quiet and swallow it all, like a mental patient being treated for dementia, or a child being given caster oil - just hold the nose and swallow?
If that's what is being suggested, perhaps it is because the one suggesting it is on that side of the fence.
I find it is good to swap places at times, and I have put myself in the position of those on that side. Maybe that's why I understand. I don't know.
How would you feel if religion was forced on your child?
Were you not glad when they pulled it from the school curriculum?
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
I was shaking my head as I read this person's comments.
Obviously he does not understand what Tour is saying, and perhaps needs to be more open-minded, rather than one-sided.
I stopped reading when I got here.
What is a mechanism?
I'm sure Tour had this in mind.
mechanism - a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.
Is he asking for chemical details? How utterly ridiculous to think that imo.
I suggest if one really want to understand Tour's position, they listen to his seminar, unless one has the same thinking as this individual. If that's the case, then I understand that person's position.
As i said to before, persons who constantly resort to name calling demonstrate their level of reason.
Look who he called stupid. Is that how scientist view their collegues, or does this only happen when one doesn't agree with their beliefs? Seems obvious, it is the latter.
Wait. Who is he anyway?
LAURENCE A. MORAN...
Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.
Hmm... Not even on Wikipedia. Interesting.
All I get on this guy, is that he is a scientist, bookseller, and blogger, that loves debating ID proponents.
Meet The Canadian Scientist Who Loves Battling American Creationists
I wonder why he didn't take up Tour's challenge to explain the mechanism of macroevolution.
Perhaps, because it might take him millions of years to do so.
Perhaps you might be interested in listening to him. Then I would like to ask a question.
To save time, you can start from 4:00. The previous minutes are a waste of time.
My question is this. What is the minimum definition of evolution? What makes evolutionary biology so complicated and messy? Can a person say they believe in evolution, as defined at its minimum, without believing in macroevolution? How is the minimum definition of evolutionary biology different to evolution as defined here,. or does it only apply in biology, and what is the difference, if any?
Does this definition in any way involve the phrase - from one common ancestor? How so?
This is what my old dictioinary says.
evolution
1. A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage).
2. (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.
Origin
Early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) ‘unrolling’, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships.
Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.
evolution | Origin and meaning of evolution by Online Etymology Dictionary
evolution (n.)
1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).
Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea.
But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.
evolve | Origin and meaning of evolve by Online Etymology Dictionary
evolve (v.)
1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from Latin evolvere "to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll," from PIE root *wel- (3) "to turn, revolve." Meaning "to develop by natural processes to a higher state" is from 1832. Related: Evolved; evolving.
The evolution of the word ‘evolution’
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have to break this post up a bit since you once again demonstrate that you have no clue right at the start. Evolution is no more "atheistic" than gravity is. Why attempt to use a positive term as a pejorative anyway? Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. You are merely calling God a liar and you should learn why. Most Christians do not believe in a lying God.
If tomorrow, the theory of evolution were proved beyond all shadow of a doubt, we wouldsimplybe left with
another explanation of how the diversity of live arose. It would do virtually nothing to prove the existence of
a god, but it would provide a solid foundation on which to build our conclusions.
Since it isn't proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, then what is wrong with a person saying that they don't see the evidence that it is, nor accepting it, and asking that it be thoroughly investigated, rather than say, 'This
is it.'
To me the picture seems clear, maybe it's because I am looking at it as it is. I don't know.
The Lawrence Krauss(es) tell us straight up, what it's about (We only have to listen to, and watch them speak, and debate).
Christians live their lives according to their faith.
What men say or don't say, do not stop them from doing so, but that faith requires them to speak against what they consider untruths - when it is called for.
The way I see it, it's not very different from atheist who feel they must speak disparaging of the Bible and
God.
What is so difficult to understand?
Do we realize that in schools this is forced on children.
What is being suggested that Christian parents and children do?
Should they keep quiet and swallow it all, like a mental patient being treated for dementia, or a child being given caster oil - just hold the nose and swallow?
If that's what is being suggested, perhaps it is because the one suggesting it is on that side of the fence.
I find it is good to swap places at times, and I have put myself in the position of those on that side. Maybe
that's why I understand. I don't know.
How would you feel if religion was forced on your child?
Were you not glad when they pulled it from the school curriculum?
And the above is a bunch of nonsense where you seem to conflate evolution with proof for atheism. No one on the atheism side has made that claim so that makes this rant of yours a massive strawman and nothing more.
One more time for those that have a hard time understanding simple concepts. The fact that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not refute God, it only refutes mistaken versions of "God". Here is an easy one. There is a resurgence of Flat Earth belief lately. The Flatties are correct that the Bible does describe a Flat Earth. That is the only thing that they are right about. But proof that the world is a globe does not refute "God" any more than the massive undeniable evidence that tells us that life evolved disproves God. It only disproves a literal reading of Genesis.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Sure, but being a Jehovah's Witness, you are about as biased as a person can be on the subject. So your "to me..." statements don't carry much weight, do they?
Which do you consider better supported by the evidence:
A) Jesus is god, died on a cross and Rose from the dead.
B) Speciation through evolution.
One of the most bizarre aspects of Creationism is the premise that a handful of ancient legends are solid evidence about the supernatural, but the mountains of evidence concerning how species came to be doesn't "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt".
The ability of Christians to deceive themselves for an agenda also explains why you believe that Armitage won a lawsuit. He didn't.
He didn't win a lawsuit any more than Stormy Daniels won a lawsuit against Trump. Armitage and Daniels just got paid to shut up and go away.
Tom
nPeace
Veteran Member
I hate to do this, but I think it's for your own good. Otherwise I would just ignore your post.
Can you read? Do you have understanding?
Where did I say evolution is atheistic?
Is an evolutionist evolution?
Sorry. I keep giving you hints, pointers, but they don't seem to be getting through.
I still love you.
Bye.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually he understands what Tour is saying quite well, and now you have demonstrated that you are quite the hypocrite. You expect other people to waste their time listening to incredibly poor arguments on videos and yet won't take the very limited amount of time it takes to read an article, which I also linked for you earlier by the way.
Or more likely because Tour's question was poorly formed. One must learn to avoid asking leading questions if you want someone to answer them. For example:
"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"
That is not a question. That is several. But I will answer them. The minimum definition of evolution is that it is a change of allele frequencies over time. Evolution is complicated because life is complicated. We are just beginning to understand how life works and that is due to continued advances in science. A complex subject will have complex answers. For your next question one cannot reasonable not "believe" ( a poor choice of words that indicates you are not thinking rationally ) in macroevolution in the first place since it has been directly observed. Of course creationists do not even understand that term. And if one wants to believe that large scale evolution is not possible that puts the burden of proof upon that person. There is massive evidence for evolution and none that goes against it. Learning what is and what is not evidence would help you greatly.
Never go to a dictionary for scientific terms. You will almost always be wrong. This is a poor way to argue.
Once again, why not try to learn? Arguments where you only demonstrate ignorance are self defeating.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You said this "atheistic evolutionist". It amounts to the same thing. Let's at least try to be honest. Do you think that you can do that?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I believe I understand why atheistic evolutionist are hell bent on establishing the theory of evolution, and
disproving God and the Bible (Those do exist right? - Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil Degrasse Tyson...imo).
If tomorrow, the theory of evolution were proved beyond all shadow of a doubt, we wouldsimplybe left with
another explanation of how the diversity of live arose. It would do virtually nothing to prove the existence of
a god, but it would provide a solid foundation on which to build our conclusions.
Since it isn't proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, then what is wrong with a person saying that they don't see the evidence that it is, nor accepting it, and asking that it be thoroughly investigated, rather than say, 'This
is it.'
To me the picture seems clear, maybe it's because I am looking at it as it is. I don't know.
The Lawrence Krauss(es) tell us straight up, what it's about (We only have to listen to, and watch them speak, and debate).
Christians live their lives according to their faith.
What men say or don't say, do not stop them from doing so, but that faith requires them to speak against what they consider untruths - when it is called for.
The way I see it, it's not very different from atheist who feel they must speak disparaging of the Bible and
God.
What is so difficult to understand?
Do we realize that in schools this is forced on children.
What is being suggested that Christian parents and children do?
Should they keep quiet and swallow it all, like a mental patient being treated for dementia, or a child being given caster oil - just hold the nose and swallow?
If that's what is being suggested, perhaps it is because the one suggesting it is on that side of the fence.
I find it is good to swap places at times, and I have put myself in the position of those on that side. Maybe
that's why I understand. I don't know.
How would you feel if religion was forced on your child?
Were you not glad when they pulled it from the school curriculum?
I would not object to a course on comparative religion where the elements of most religions are studied side by side along with exploring the mythology they are founded on. I would object to a particular religion being taught in a science class as if it were scientifically sound. Science should be taught in a science class.
Religious ideology does not belong in a science class. If people wish to have religious dogma taught to their children in place of science, there are schools which do that, supported by various religious organizations.
What about the scientists who are not atheists who understand the evidence for evolution and accept it? Why are you attaching the word atheist to a scientific theory? Science has nothing to do with religion, or the absence of it. That is nothing but your own bias showing. There is no such thing as an "atheistic" theory of evolution. It is simply an explanation using the available facts we know about the natural world.
If you or any creationist can come up with a theory that encompasses the last nearly 200 years of accumulated evidence from numerous fields of study without distorting or ignoring any of it, then you will have something to put forward. But you do not have that........
To what degree of certainty do you need something to be proven for you to believe it? Are you looking for absolute certainty? That is never attained, except for perhaps certain logical absolutes. Decide what level of evidence would satisfy you to believe evolution occurs, and then apply the same standard of required evidence to your belief in creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever your bent is.
Did you actually read the article in the link I attached to my last post??? You didn't address any of the points in the article.
It addresses the issue (among others) that Tour is speaking outside his area of expertise. He is not an evolutionary biologist. It also quotes him as stating that he is NOT a theist.
But anyway, he is an outlier, and when considering highly specialized and technical fields of study which involve hundreds of years of accumulated evidence, I tend to have to go with the consensus of those who understand the subject better than I do.
He did not give a detailed description of another mechanism he thinks is supported by the available evidence, did he? No.
I realize Christians live according to their faith (well, that's what they claim). Can you think of anything you cannot believe based upon faith alone?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well, I don't believe Jesus died on a cross. Put to death? Yes. Raised from the dead? Yes.
So A.
As regards B, the only evidence for "Speciation" is things like this.
[GALLERY=media, 8655]Drosophila_speciation_experiment.svg by nPeace posted Sep 3, 2018 at 11:24 AM[/GALLERY]
...which we observe, and I might accept evidence for Speciation, provided we are on the same page regarding a species.
However, until they get this problem sorted out, I can't say yes to B.
Species
...it has proven difficult to find a satisfactory definition. Scientists and conservationists need a species definition which allows them to work, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If as Linnaeus thought, species were fixed and clearly distinct from one another, there would be no problem, but evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. While this definition is often adequate, when looked at more closely it is problematic.
If you are referring to evolution on a small scale. I accept that evidence.
If an elephant came from the above experiment, and it was clearly observed. Why would I not accept that too?
They should call my parents and ask them if at anytime I fell and hit my head, or check to see if I suffer from temporary blindness.
A is still stronger though.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Speciation is by definition macroevolution. The person that invented the term gets to define it and it is defined as evolution at or above the speciation level. Creationists tend to have a strawman definition of it based upon "change in kind". Since they cannot even properly define "kind" this is a failed definition. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.
By the way, do you know why it is so hard to come up with a consistent definition of "species"? It is due to the fact that life is the product of evolution. If creationism was correct there would be clear borders that life could not evolve past, and yet we only see evidence to the contrary for that belief.
And how can a belief that has no reliable evidence for it be stronger in any way at all for a concept that is supported by mountains of scientific evidence? Your logic appears to be faulty again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And you could not have picked a worse example than elephant evolution to bring up @nPeace . When it comes to fossils of land based animals large animals fossilize much more easily than small ones. Small mammals rot away very quickly or are just eaten and disappear. An elephant has a large boned body and that is preserved much more often relatively than that of a mouse for example. There have been roughly 185 different extinct species identified in the fossil record. This article only deals with a few of them:
Elephant - Wikipedia
The history of elephants go from this bugger:
all the way to the African elephant.
Elephant - Wikipedia
The history of elephants go from this bugger:
all the way to the African elephant.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Why would anyone teach religion in a science class?
I'm not talking about teaching religion in a science class.
Sorry if I confused you. I meant as a subject.
So there is religion as one subject, science as another... etc, during different periods, or sessions.
When I went to school, that is how it was.
However, they pulled religion completely, I believe because students were of various religions, and parents might have complained about their child being taught conflicting ideas.
I think there are both disadvantages, and advantages.
I think teaching evolution is school, is no different to teaching mythology, because it just hasn't been verified, and there are so many missing links.
I mean, how can you be teaching that the diversity of life on earth came by evolution, and can't even explain the origin of life, or what that life was. Where did the diversity of life come from?
All you have is a chart drawn up, and a whole bunch of theories that have not been verified, along with many conflicting debates on findings supposed to be evidence.
Where did I attach the word atheist to a scientific theory?
Nowhere. Do you know what atheistic evolutionist means?
It might probably be better if I let you work that out.
So you say. That's not the case, however.
There are some basic and fundamental things we don't throw away.
Exactly. I hope you are now seeing the point
Actually, when you said proven, you had me there for a moment.
I was wondering what you were talking about - What has been proven.
The article you linked was an analyst of a video of Tour, giving a presentation. I had watched the presentation, and I though the analysis was terrible, and blowing things out of proportion. It seemed biased too.
I don't need the analysis, because James humbly mentioned his position, for over an hour, and I think I understood what he was saying.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I hope you did your homework on Moeritherium.And you could not have picked a worse example than elephant evolution to bring up @nPeace . When it comes to fossils of land based animals large animals fossilize much more easily than small ones. Small mammals rot away very quickly or are just eaten and disappear. An elephant has a large boned body and that is preserved much more often relatively than that of a mouse for example. There have been roughly 185 different extinct species identified in the fossil record. This article only deals with a few of them:
Elephant - Wikipedia
The history of elephants go from this bugger:
all the way to the African elephant.
I'm not going to do it for you, nor will I bother posting any here.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification about religion in schools. I was assuming you were on board with the intelligent design folks who want to do that. The want to teach that there was some designer that made everything alongside science. Sorry for the confusion, but that is usually what I hear on this forum.
The main issue is what class do you cut out to make room for the religious class, or do you make the school day longer? What happens when a half dozen religion want their version of god taught? Or when a couple of dozen denominations want different versions of Christianity taught? How many hours of a school day can be devoted to proselytizing? I assume it would be an elective and not a requirement?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, "missing links" is a discredited creationist idea. When you use old failed arguments you as much as admit defeat. But then you do have to stop learning not to accept the theory of evolution as a result you will always end up making obvious false claims and obvious errors such as thinking that abiogenesis has a role in the debate. How many times do people have to point out to you that the source of the last common ancestor of all life does not need to be known for evolution to occur. Yes, it was almost certainly through abiogenesis. But there is no need to explain abiogenesis to explain evolution. They are two related but very separate problems.
Your tendency to spew a ton of false claims and errors in your longer posts is why you should try to be honest and limit your posts to one subject at a time. When you make multiple errors you will only get short corrections and no real explanations. This is called a Gish Gallop on your part and is not an honest debating technique.
Do the microevolutionary changes just suddenly stop?
How does the microevolution of a species know when to stop, so as to avoid going too far and becoming a new species?
At what point did French become a language different from Latin?
Changes accumulate.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Understandably we make mistakes.
That bad word - assume - never fails, when it comes to getting us in trouble. That why I avoid it.
So you know, I am not an ID proponent.
How religion was taught was by using the Bible as a textbook, just as one would use a comprehension textbook to teach English.
Periods were allocated for each subject being done each school day.
So if someone is doing say, three subjects - Chemistry, Mathematics, Religious, there would be a time period alloted for each.
I think most Muslim children were either home schooled, or chose education at private schools. So using the Bible wasn't a problem until later, Hence, why I believe the change occurred.
Time for a break.
