Enough Time for Evolution?

[Agnostic75]

You're starting to bore me. The first DNA was very lucky. OK? Imagine the many building blocks of DNA floating around in the (thick-it had to be thick) soup. How many blocks does it have? OMG I don't know means I shouldn't be talking about it. Haha.

But what you said opposes naturalism, not evolution. Evolution only addresses "what" has happened, not "why" life has evolved.

Intelligent design advocate Michael Behe agrees with Charles Darwin about common descent. He only disagrees with Darwin about the mechanisms which account for common descent. Behe said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Do you accept the global flood theory, or the young earth theory?

 

[savagewind]

Hydrophilic means water loving...why would it settle to the bottom? It would bind with water...

Oops. You said "Not" hydrophilic. Those not hydrophilic are like sea glass. My bad.

So I think you need things that are not hydrophilic to build something bigger with. But all the things that are not hydrophilic are being tossed about by the movement of the water. It is what makes sea glass beautiful.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Oops. You said "Not" hydrophilic. Those not hydrophilic are like sea glass. My bad.

So I think you need things that are not hydrophilic to build something bigger with. But all the things that are not hydrophilic are being tossed about by the movement of the water. It is what makes sea glass beautiful.

You need both.

 

[Alceste]

Interesting. I think you are making that up. I have never heard a description of Genesis 6:1-4 that isn't literal. Do you have a link please? I feel very lonely believing it isn't literal.

I do not know, like you know, what they teach at Harvard (my husband says Yale might have a Divinity school too), but he went to Chatholic High School (accredited) called Boston Latin and the Jesuits there teach the Bible as The Word Of God. But that is neither here nor there. It just proves to me your making stuff up.

I'm serious. Nobody is teaching that Genesis is literally true at university level, even in divinity campuses. It's a ludicrous belief, shared only by a tiny minority of Christians, almost all of them in the US. It cannot survive a university-level education. Universities have fairly high academic standards. They're quite serious about trying to teach what is actually true, and the books of the Bible were of course written by human beings, warts and all.

 

[Alceste]

Whatever. So you are saying the architect is the same person who causes the building to go up and function? Wow. You have an amazing imagination.

Not me, I'm not a theist. I'm saying the theists who accept the fact of evolution have a beautiful belief, IMO, with a more powerful, awe-inspiring and intelligent god than the theists who think god built everything directly the way a child builds towers with Lego.

They're both fiction as far as I'm concerned, but the former is quite a beautiful belief all the same.

 

[savagewind]

I'm serious. Nobody is teaching that Genesis is literally true at university level, even in divinity campuses. It's a ludicrous belief, shared only by a tiny minority of Christians, almost all of them in the US. It cannot survive a university-level education. Universities have fairly high academic standards. They're quite serious about trying to teach what is actually true, and the books of the Bible were of course written by human beings, warts and all.

But you do not have proof, proof that there are no accredited university courses that teach Genesis 6:1-4 describes a real life phenomenon but NOT that children were born from unholy unions. I can not refute what you say. It surprises me though. Shared by only "a tiny minority of Christians"? I don't think so. A Jew is not a Christian. You know that though, right?

 

[dust1n]

Does no one who believes life is design free never imagine how very lucky DNA is?

Why would DNA be lucky? It's a molecule. It would be like saying nitrogen is lucky.

 

[savagewind]

Why would DNA be lucky? It's a molecule. It would be like saying nitrogen is lucky.

Nitrogen is lucky. If I woke up in a beautiful garden but had no idea of the before and where I came from, just the garden and me, I might consider myself lucky. Nitrogen appeared from who knows where and seems quite happy about it. It is lucky.

Do you ever hear nitrogen complaining?

 

[dust1n]

Nitrogen is lucky. If I woke up in a beautiful garden but had no idea of the before and where I came from, just the garden and me, I might consider myself lucky. Nitrogen appeared from who knows where and seems quite happy about it. It is lucky.

Do you ever hear nitrogen complaining?

No, because nitrogen lacks the capability of complaining, being happy, waking up, considering itself, or having any ideas at all, let alone ideas of the before and where it came from. That seems even more unlucky to me then someone who complains and enjoys the luxury of being able to talk.

 

[savagewind]

No, because nitrogen lacks the capability of complaining, being happy, waking up, considering itself, or having any ideas at all, let alone ideas of the before and where it came from. That seems even more unlucky to me then someone who complains and enjoys the luxury of being able to talk.

:thud:

 

[Shermana]

Message to Shermana: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument #1



I told you that maybe aliens brought life to earth. You replied:



What do you believe is the case?

Argument #2

Your video of the evolutionist will not do. It looks contrived. The woman at the beginning was a babbling idiot. The man's name was not stated. He did not look professional at all. He did not talk spontaneously like an expert would. He had a strange, and suspicious demeanor.

Videos are not useful in debates since written texts are far easier to assess, and discuss. What you need is some written texts that state what you were trying to show with the video, and the name of whoever you are quoting.

Few serious debaters would ever use a brief video by an unknown person as evidence in a debate.

Argument #3

It is quite comical that little old you are trying to overturn over 150 years of advances in evolutionary theory, and the overwhelming support of over 99% of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

Argument #4

Would you like to have a public Internet debate on common descent with an expert? If so, how would laymen be able to adequately judge the debate?

Argument #5

What existed before the Big Bang? If God existed before the Big Bang, where was he? If he was outside of time and space, why should anyone exclude a reasonable possibility that naturalistic, eternally existing energy existed outside of time and space, caused time and space to originate, and caused the Big Bang? Such energy might have eternally existing attributes just like God supposedly has.

Argument #6



Judge Jones did not ignore Scott Minnich. Judge Jones said:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.......ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community......."

Argument #7

Judge Jones also said:

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.......The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.......The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.......Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.......an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching.......Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion."

The same Wikipedia article says:

"After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed."

Apparently, to some Christians, the ends justify the means, even if the means include lying. Another example of a Christian lying as a means of justifying the means to an end is Alan Chambers, the founder, and past president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International. Chambers admitted that he had lied about his change of sexual identity, and apologized to gay people for all of the harm that he and his organization had caused to homosexuals, and said that 99.9% of all homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. A major difference between Chambers, and some Christians at the Dover trial is that he admitted that he lied, and apologized to gay people.

There is no doubt that the Dover trial was a disgrace, and an embarrassment for the intelligent design movement.

Argument #8

You cannot claim that Judge Jones is unfairly biased since he is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president, and said that "ID arguments may be true."

Argument #9

Since lots of theistic evolutionists reject intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, the issue of how the flagellum evolved is not exclusively an issue of naturalism versus theism. You have said that your are only opposing naturalistic evolution, but apparently you are also opposing theistic evolution since you have objected to "unlikely coincidences." According to theistic evolution, there are not any unlikely coincidences.

Argument #10

Do you understand Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun well enough to adequately critique it?

Argument #11

Only a relative handful of experts accept creationism. If we subtracted from that number those who accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, the number that would be left would barely be able to fill a few buses.

Do you accept the global flood theory, or the young earth theory?

Argument #12

Does the Bible have anything to do with your opinions about intelligent design, or is your interest in intelligent design entirely scientific? When intelligent design advocates changed the term "creationism" to "intelligent design," they obviously had religion in mind since if aliens created life on earth, or brought existing life to earth, there would still be the issue of where the aliens came from.

Many Christians have no problem accepting common descent. Why do you have a problem accepting it?

First off, you can't even understand what I said about aliens properly, so if you can't understand basic English of what I say, and you're going to try to make this about me personally, you've shown that you're not capable or willing to have an adequate discussion. Especially when you're going to completely change the subject, and I said in the OP I won't be dealing with this attempt to weasel out of the actual subject matter. If you're too lazy to discuss the Review, feel free to spectate. When you actually have something to say about the issues of the OP and not about the Evolution vs Creationism debate in general, then you can sit at the adult table. Until then, I'll be ignoring any future replies that have nothing to do with the subject. If you want to ask these general questions about evolution and the Dover Trial and the Flood and such in an appropriate thread, start your own thread. If you're not interested in discussing the specifics of this Review, get off my thread and start your own.

Most of your argument is about a general argument about Intelligent Design and not to do with the specifics of this Report (which it appears you don't want to actually discuss) and appealing to authority as if that trumps actual discussion of the data and as if I'm not allowed to discuss it in an attempt to pigeon hole the argument rather than go over the actual debate, and I don't see how Judge Jones is not biased even if he's a Christian Republican, that's just naive since many Christian Republicans are nonetheless proponents of non-Fundamentalist versions, and I don't see how you've proven that Jones actually looked at the evidence in question, you just said "Nuh uh".

Calling the interview "Contrived" and that he was a Babbling idiot, after I gave his identity as a Professor of Cell Biology at NY Medical school is a red flag that you are not interested in serious debate and simply are going to brush off and handwave even those from secular, non-Creationist sources so that's a dead giveaway you're going to refuse even non-Creationist sources who agree with me, I don't deal with such deck stacking from people who call any of the opposition "blabbering idiots' regardless of what they say. What do you mean he did not talk spontaneously? Are you serious? Stewart Newman, do you want a repost? This is a perfect example nonetheless of the problems in trying to have an objective discussion with Evolutionists, thank you for demonstrating this.

Stop polluting my thread or stick to the subject and try not to embarass yourself further with things like calling a Secular Professor of Cell Biology at NYU Medical School a "Blabbering Idiot" without addressing what he says, thanks. If that's what you're going to do, what's the point of debating? Is Deck stacking and ignoring the actual points in question apparently all your side is capable of?

 

[Agnostic75]

First off, you can't even understand what I said about aliens properly, so if you can't understand basic English of what I say, and you're going to try to make this about me personally, you've shown that you're not capable or willing to have an adequate discussion. Especially when you're going to completely change the subject, and I said in the OP I won't be dealing with this attempt to weasel out of the actual subject matter. If you're too lazy to discuss the Review, feel free to spectate.

I am not at all making this about you personally. I am only taking issue with your opposition to common descent, and your support of intelligent design, and irreducible complexity.

I most certainly did comment on your video. I watched all of it, and I said:

"Your video of the evolutionist will not do. It looks contrived. The woman at the beginning was a babbling idiot. The man's name was not stated. He did not look professional at all. He did not talk spontaneously like an expert would. He had a strange, and suspicious demeanor. Videos are not useful in debates since written texts are far easier to assess, and discuss. What you need is some written texts that state what you were trying to show with the video, and the name of whoever you are quoting. Few serious debaters would ever use a brief video by an unknown person as evidence in a debate."

Videos are a poor means of having a basis for discussions since they are difficult to quote, and the video does not even state who the man was. Please state what parts of evolutionary theory you object to. You mentioned "unlikely accidents." What does that mean? If theistic evolution is true, there are not any unlikely accidents.

When I first brought up theistic evolution, you said that you were only objecting to naturalistic evolution, but later you definitely were objecting to theistic evolution since many theistic evolutionists accept common descent, and you do not.

As far as aliens are concerned, I did not need to use that argument since according to most experts, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that macro evolution is true, and that intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, are false.

If you are not willing to have a public Internet debate with an expert in biology, you will have admitted that you know that you do not know nearly as much about biology as you pretend you do. Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, that would not do you any good since even Michael Behe was not able convince Judge Jones at the Dover trial that intelligent design is science, and since the vast majority of experts accept common descent.

The details of the Dover trial are well-known. A number of Christians lied, and had, as Judge Jones said, "selective memory loss." There was positive proof that the term "intelligent design" was creationism in disguise. The Dover trial was a disaster for the Dover School District, and for the Discovery Channel. And, as the Wikipedia article showed, there was some squabbling between some of the proponents of intelligent design before the trial.

Rather than get your feathers ruffled, why don't you just use logic, and clearly state, with texts, not videos, what it is about evolutionary theory that you object to. That way, you can clear the air, and start all over.

 

[Shermana]

Let me repeat, if all you're going to do is write off Stewart Nemwan, PHD and Professor of Cell Biology at NYU Medical School as a "blabbering idiot" who you feel doesn't talk "Spontaneously" without actually discussing what he says, leave my thread before I have to report a violation of rule 4.

Especially if you insist on making this about me and trying to pigeon hole the argument as if only people with advanced Biology degrees are able to even discuss this.

If you are not willing to have a public Internet debate with an expert in biology, you will have admitted that you know that you do not know nearly as much about biology as you pretend you do

Now unless you have something to contribute regarding the actual Review, get out.

Note to future readers: All attempts to avoid the Review and make this a discussion about general evolutionary theory vs creationism that aren't directly related to the Review, especially when it comes to brushing off and dismissing my rebuttals to said criticism will be reported for rule 4, let me warn you all ahead of time from now on. I didn't want to have to do that, but this is getting out of control as it is getting old.

 

[Alceste]

But you do not have proof, proof that there are no accredited university courses that teach Genesis 6:1-4 describes a real life phenomenon but NOT that children were born from unholy unions. I can not refute what you say. It surprises me though. Shared by only "a tiny minority of Christians"? I don't think so. A Jew is not a Christian. You know that though, right?

What does this have to do with Jews? You've lost me. I was talking about all the hundreds of millions of Christians who are not American fundamentalists. Anglicans, mormons, unitarians, protestants, catholics - a large proportion of the parishioners of every Christian church and the majority of the clergy does not take scripture to be literally true, especially at university level. The bizarre literalist cults you have in the US are very much the exception to the general rule. That brand of religious belief is most popular with people with little education - people who did not even finish high school. It cannot easily survive a university level education.

 

[Agnostic75]

Most of your argument is about a general argument about Intelligent Design and not to do with the specifics of this Report.......

I am happy to discuss specifics. What specifics are you referring to? What did the man say that you agree with? What is it about evolutionary theory that you disagree with?

.......and appealing to authority as if that trumps actual discussion of the data and as if I'm not allowed to discuss it in an attempt to pigeon hole the argument rather than go over the actual debate.

Why are peer reviewed papers submitted to academic journals? Quite obviously, partly so people can appeal to authority. At the Dover trial, Judge Jones appealed to some authorities, and he said that the majority of experts reject intelligent design. If people should not appeal to authorities, who should they appeal to, laymen?

If you think that you know more than most experts do, please submit a paper for peer review to a leading science journal.

If is certainly fine for you to discuss all of the data that you want to, but regardless of how much data you discuss, the vast majority of experts, who know far more about biology that you will ever know, and have devoted their entire academic careers to biology, accept common descent, and it is a given that laymen should take their word over yours, and a relative handful of creationist experts, may of whom accept the widely rejected global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

Calling the interview "Contrived" and that he was a Babbling idiot, after I gave his identity as a Professor of Cell Biology at NY Medical school.....

I called the woman a babbling idiot, not the man. I was not aware until now that the man is a professor of cell biology at a NY medical school. What is his name? Whoever he is, he clearly said that he accepts evolution. He only has a problem with how some evolutionists claim evolution occurs. He would not in the least be impressed with your objections to common descent.

Didn't you quote mine since you used what the professor said in order to question common descent when you know that he accepts it?

Just so I understand you correctly, do you oppose common descent?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Shermana: If you will specifically state what it is about the video that you wish to discuss, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Shermana]

I SAID THE PROFESSOR WAS NOT A CREATIONIST! And I misread you when you said the woman sounded like a blabbering idiot, but apparently she was on cue enough for him to respond to.

The issue is about what he says about increments.

how some evolutionists claim evolution occurs

Some? We're talking about what TEXTBOOKS ARE SAYING. It is not just same.

And I have yet to see any evidence that Jones looked at the evidence Minnich provided.

 

[savagewind]

What does this have to do with Jews? You've lost me. I was talking about all the hundreds of millions of Christians who are not American fundamentalists. Anglicans, mormons, unitarians, protestants, catholics - a large proportion of the parishioners of every Christian church and the majority of the clergy does not take scripture to be literally true, especially at university level. The bizarre literalist cults you have in the US are very much the exception to the general rule. That brand of religious belief is most popular with people with little education - people who did not even finish high school. It cannot easily survive a university level education.

I think you are right. I am responding in length here Thank you
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3427443-post138.html

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Shermana: Since you used Professor Stuart Newman as a source, I did some research on him. I acknowledge that he is a qualified, and distinguished expert on evolution, and I retract anything of a derogatory nature that I may have implied about him.

The Huffington Post has an article by Dr. Newman at Stuart A. Newman: Evolution Is More Than Natural Selection. Consider the following excerpts from the article:

One symptom of the unraveling of a scientific paradigm is that its advocates tend to change the subject when their favored views are criticized. A recent blog post of mine that suggested that the physics of embryonic development can tell us something about why complex organisms have the characteristic forms they do, and explored how this might shed light on the origin of the major types of animals and plants, was subjected to this kind of feint at the blog site of evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. A University of Chicago professor and a self-acknowledged defender of the Darwinian synthesis against "contrarians, creationists, and those who know little about evolution," Coyne wrote in response to my post, "I haven't seen anything that makes me think that natural selection is an outmoded way to think about the evolution of adaptations."

While evolution can thus occur with or without natural selection, the really big, phylum-defining transformations, which happened in an era when developmental systems were much more plastic than they are now, are unlikely to have been produced by incremental adaptation-based mechanisms. I hope to discuss these early phylogenetic events in a future blog post.

Stewart said "while evolution can thus occur with or without natural selection.......developmental systems.......are unlikely to have been produced by incremental adaptation-based mechanisms."

I assume that your intent is to claim that since there is such widespread disagreement among evolutionists, creationists should be suspicious. If that is your intent, you will not get anywhere with such an approach. Newman, and Coyne, and even Michael Behe, have little if any doubts that common descent is true. Even the majority of Christian biologists accept common descent. If it is reasonable for you quote a secular evolutionist, it is reasonable for me to quote a Christian biochemist. Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

If someone told you that there are lots of disagreements among Christians about lots of things, you might tell them that the vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that in spite of some differences regarding some issues, all Christians are part of the family of God, and will be rewarded by God with eternal life.

A Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent shows that there are many kinds of scientific evidence that support common descent, such as microfossils, Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development, biogeography, island biogeography, and, to quote, "antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects provides evidence that evolution due to natural selection is an ongoing process in the natural world."

Another Wikipedia article says:

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

 

[Iti oj]

I think you are right. I am responding in length here Some of the most interesting answers have been OFF TOPIC (I do not know how to link a single post like they do). Thank you

I will tell you how they do that. First look in the right top corner of a post. It you will see a number for example this post I am replying to is #381 click on it ans it brings up that post in its own page copy and paste that link lie so.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3427433-post381.html
Edit: note I am post #383