Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Tristesse]

I think that my reasoning is pretty good and I thank you for your comment “I admit that at first glance, that argument might be appealing for some” Keep glancing at it and I you may see it, if God in His mercy grant you to understand, that He reveals Himself to you as He does to billions of people your in with a chance.

melody definition
melo·dy (mel′ə dē)
noun pl. melodies -·dies
1.
a. pleasing sounds or arrangement of sounds in sequence
b. musical quality, as in the arrangement of words
2. Music
a. a sequence of single tones, usually in the same key or mode, to produce a rhythmic whole; often, a tune, air, or song
b. the element of form having to do with the arrangement of single tones in sequence
c. the leading part, or voice, in a harmonic composition; the air

The reason that a melody has a composer/creator is that is pleasing and that it was designed to be pleasant by a composer that it is not the result of a random, fortuity event that it has a strict order and that it produces a predicted reaction in the hearer, and we can know a lot about the character of the composer, just as by looking at the creation around and above our environment we know of the characteristic of our designer in same way as in the development of a melody, creation has a sequence of single steps that will have the end result that it creator intended.

You missed my point, We have no copies of music occurring naturally. Thats why you notice design, all the copies of music we have have been designed. And I don't need you to give me a definition of a melody, I was a music major in college. Life, however does occur naturally, it's a different process than music composition, or watches or buildings. Life is proof of life, not how it got here. You need to come up with a better hypothesis than, "life is here, therefore there must be a creator" thats not how it works at all. I'm sure the god hypothesis makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it's just flawed reasoning and bad science.

 

[themadhair]

I am a practical man with limited time so I don’t waste time in learning in detail things that doesn’t have foreseeable benefit for my life.

Look around you environment and notice things that require scientific understanding. Your car, your house, your doctor, etc all require scientific understanding for them to work. If crap like creationism is taught then the population will become scientifically retarded. If you don’t how a scientifically retarded population, in a society almost entirely reliant on technology, is a problem then that’s your choice.

Council of Europe report on the dangers of creationism in science education.

BTW I was referring to the fact that apes don’t have a fossil evolutionary path, they have always been what they are today.

You have no idea just who unbelievably asinine this comment is. There are ape fossils that detail the ancestry of extant species (like chimpanzees for example) just like there are hominid fossils detailing our ancestry. Maybe you should look into this stuff before making such flowing claims that fly in the face of what scientists have actually found in the world. Or would that be impractical to you?

As I said evolution is undeniable, but I hope that you can understand that all of this does not deny the existence of God the creator of all there is.

I’m calling bs on you here. You simply cannot hold evolution to be undeniable and then make asshat comments that ”apes don’t have a fossil evolutionary path”. The whole “scienc doesn’t disprove god” may be true, but in this issue it is a total red herring.

What science discovers fills me with awe at the magnificence of God.

I must express my scepticism that you may have studied something ”doesn’t have foreseeable benefit for my life”.

What do you mean by a total smackdown by the scientists?

Why don’t you read the Dover trial report if you are genuine in asking that question?

Paley was a Philosopher so my claim to ID is a philosophical one, why would I take offence or run to the library when I don’t see any benefit in knowing about these scientific theories?

If you actually went to the library and did some research on this you might learn something. This is the bit that bugs me about you emiliano. You make the (initially reasonable sounding) claim that you don’t study the science involved in this topic because you don’t see any benefit for you. Unfortunately, this is shown to be utterly disingenuous when you make comments like the following:

Most evolutionists subscribe to the theory of the big bang as the beginning and the creation of the universe. A random and purposeless
explosion crating all this and sustain it in supernatural way? I don’t think so!

So despite you admitting that have not studied the subject, you were quite prepared to post the above caricature and misrepresentation of science? Does the fact that you are so utterly cluelessly ignorant to the point where you can’t differentiate between a branch of biology, evolutionary theory, and branch of physics, big bang theory??
Not only are you using a word that has no meaning in science, ”evolutionist” is a total creationist word, not only have you described a scientific theory that my 7 year old cousin could recognise for being caricature and not only are you disingenuously hiding behind the claim of taking a philosophical perspective (something the scientific claims in your posts highlight as being disingenuous) – but you also have the unmitigated gall to tell us that, despite the jaw-dropping lack of knowledge you have on the subject, you won’t be educating yourself because you are a ‘practical man’. Bravo sir! It is rare to see the utter vacuousness of creationism so clearly demonstrated.

As I said evolution is undeniable, but I hope that you can understand that all of this does not deny the existence of God the creator of all there is.
…
This is clearly demonstrated to us by simple observations, humans were created with all that it was necessary for us to multiply and subdue the whole of God’s creation, no other creature is.

The above would seem to be rather compelling evidence either you are lying or deeply unaware of what it is you are saying.

Paley was a Philosopher so my claim to ID is a philosophical one

Let’s knock ID on the head from the philosophical perspective shall we?
When I say a ‘watch is designed’ what is it that I mean? I mean a ‘watch is designed for the purpose of telling the time to humans’.
When I say that a ‘car is designed’ what is it that I mean? I mean a ‘car is designed for the transportation of humans’.

This line of thinking breaks down for humans and other life. We have the fossil, genetic, morphological, biochemical and phylogenetic evidence that humans, over the period of millions of years through the evolutionary process, designed themselves to fit the earth’s environment. All the creatures on this planet, including those that once existed but are now dead, are all designers that have made the lifeforms on this planet what they are today. The creatures that are still alive are still designing.

Paley’s line of reasoning also breaks down when we look at the universe. For the universe to have been designed there must have been a purpose to that design. And what is that purpose? The only candidate that stands for that purpose is to claim that the universe was designed for life. This fails miserably.
If I gave you a rock that contained one atom of iron on it I would not be able, in good and honest conscience, be able to claim that rock was designed for the purpose of producing iron.
In the exact same way I cannot, in good and honest conscience, claim that the universe was designed for life when 99.9999999999999999999% isn’t just absent of life, but is actively damaging to it.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, emil, you're contradicting yourself. You say yes, you accept ToE, but no, you don't. Your statement that

apes don’t have a fossil evolutionary path, they have always been what they are today.

(1) is false (2) contradicts your statement that you do accept ToE. So which is it?

 

[themadhair]

I suspect emiliano is one of those people who have convinced themselves that they respect science, and simply do know enough science to realise that they really don’t.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually I think emiliano is in transition, but still hasn't fully studied the subject, so doesn't quite get all the implications of changing his position.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I suspect emiliano is one of those people who have convinced themselves that they respect science, and simply do know enough science to realise that they really don’t.

And that's just it in a nutshell. When they don't know they should state that they don't know and leave it at that.....but NAWWWW....these internet scientist wanna beeeees start spouting nonsense about ToE...which they show they know nothing about as if they were experts or just simply regurgitation what some other wanna beee know it all said......

 

[emiliano]

I have to agree that this is a rehash of the watchmaker argument.

The genetic code is not like a musical piece... Unless Bach spent the majority of his time during a concert randomly banging on the keys...

It's more like listening to the background noise of starts... sure every once in a while you get a 'melody' in a pulsar but most of it is garbled nonsense. No one insists that the pulsar is intelligent even though it is producing a regular rhythm.

wa:do

I have to agree that this is a rehash of the watchmaker argument.

The genetic code is not like a musical piece... Unless Bach spent the majority of his time during a concert randomly banging on the keys...
wa:do

Melody, an organized succession of notes of specific pitch and duration, linked together in time to produce a coherent musical expression.
Chord, in music, three or more notes sounded simultaneously. Chords are classified according to the interval between their notes. The most common kind of chord is the triad, which is built of two consecutive thirds: If the bottom interval is a major third and the top one a minor third, the chord is a major triad (as, C-E-G). If the intervals are in the order minor third-major third, the chord is a minor triad (as, C-E$-G or A-C-E). Less common are diminished triads (minor third plus minor third, as, C-E$-G$) and augmented triads (major third plus major third, as, C-E-G#). Triads can also be described as having the intervals of a third (such as C-E) and a fifth (C-G) when both intervals are counted from the root of the triad (here, C).Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
It seems to me that you are on different wave length, what suggest to us that there is a composer is exactly the fact that a piece of music and let say that it is Bach’s is not a random banging on keys but are purposeful arrangement of note to express a sentiment, that to express a happy sentiment a note is played on an A key a sad one on a C key and so on.

It's more like listening to the background noise of starts... sure every once in a while you get a 'melody' in a pulsar but most of it is garbled nonsense.

That would only be the case if the composer in not a musically trained composer and you can see that not only we deduct that there is a composer but that he is musically trained composer.

No one insists that the pulsar is intelligent even though it is producing a regular rhythm.

Rhythm, controlled or measured flow of movement, either aural or visual, usually produced by an ordered arrangement of differing elements of the medium concerned. Rhythm is a basic feature of all the arts, particularly music, poetry, and dance; rhythm can also be detected in natural phenomena.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
To produce an ordered arrangement require intelligence, the main flaw in your quip is “regular rhythm” this suggest order and purpose and identifies the composer. The similarities that I want point out are the fact that melodies are produced by arranging a small number of letters.

 

[themadhair]

To produce an ordered arrangement require intelligence, the main flaw in your quip is “regular rhythm” this suggest order and purpose and identifies the composer. The similarities that I want point out are the fact that melodies are produced by arranging a small number of letters.

You ignore the key reason why your melody example breaks down – it does not display the same common ancestry nested hierarchies that we find in DNA. The single feature that makes DNA such overwhelming proof of common ancestry is the consistency with which extant genomes unilaterally and unwaveringly conform to a strict nested hierarchies – a feature that is absent from compositional music.

Ordered arrangement requires intelligence? Take a look at this post.

Do I smell some Bill Demski and his specified complexity? This should be fun. If you want to make the claim that ‘ordered arrangement’ requires intelligent then please answer the following question:

Please define a useable metric for detecting design. Good luck. This will be interesting.

 

[emiliano]

And that's just it in a nutshell. When they don't know they should state that they don't know and leave it at that.....but NAWWWW....these internet scientist wanna beeeees start spouting nonsense about ToE...which they show they know nothing about as if they were experts or just simply regurgitation what some other wanna beee know it all said......

Oh God it is a quinella,:faint: it was the themadhair that started the scientific arguments “Every living species on the planet, from the bacteria to the great whale, from unicorns to the woogwooga sesquatch has DNA.
DNA is made up of four letters. Just. Four. Letters. He thinks that we could father a banana any time (a genetic throwback), because “The difference between me and the banana over there is in the way those four letters are arranged within mine and the banana's DNA”

 

[tumbleweed41]

Oh God it is a quinella,:faint: it was the themadhair that started the scientific arguments “Every living species on the planet, from the bacteria to the great whale, from unicorns to the woogwooga sesquatch has DNA.
DNA is made up of four letters. Just. Four. Letters. He thinks that we could father a banana any time (a genetic throwback), because “The difference between me and the banana over there is in the way those four letters are arranged within mine and the banana's DNA”

Your misapplication of genetics and biology is truly amazing.

 

[Tristesse]

Melody, an organized succession of notes of specific pitch and duration, linked together in time to produce a coherent musical expression.
Chord, in music, three or more notes sounded simultaneously. Chords are classified according to the interval between their notes. The most common kind of chord is the triad, which is built of two consecutive thirds: If the bottom interval is a major third and the top one a minor third, the chord is a major triad (as, C-E-G). If the intervals are in the order minor third-major third, the chord is a minor triad (as, C-E$-G or A-C-E). Less common are diminished triads (minor third plus minor third, as, C-E$-G$) and augmented triads (major third plus major third, as, C-E-G#). Triads can also be described as having the intervals of a third (such as C-E) and a fifth (C-G) when both intervals are counted from the root of the triad (here, C).Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
It seems to me that you are on different wave length, what suggest to us that there is a composer is exactly the fact that a piece of music and let say that it is Bach’s is not a random banging on keys but are purposeful arrangement of note to express a sentiment, that to express a happy sentiment a note is played on an A key a sad one on a C key and so on.

It's more like listening to the background noise of starts... sure every once in a while you get a 'melody' in a pulsar but most of it is garbled nonsense.

That would only be the case if the composer in not a musically trained composer and you can see that not only we deduct that there is a composer but that he is musically trained composer.

No one insists that the pulsar is intelligent even though it is producing a regular rhythm.

Rhythm, controlled or measured flow of movement, either aural or visual, usually produced by an ordered arrangement of differing elements of the medium concerned. Rhythm is a basic feature of all the arts, particularly music, poetry, and dance; rhythm can also be detected in natural phenomena.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
To produce an ordered arrangement require intelligence, the main flaw in your quip is “regular rhythm” this suggest order and purpose and identifies the composer. The similarities that I want point out are the fact that melodies are produced by arranging a small number of letters.

haha You didn't get the point that painted wolf was making, she wasn't saying that bach's music was banging on the paino. She said the universe would be the equivalent of bach banging on the piano, The universe is complete chaos. if you wanted to compare composition to the universe. The other point that I made, is the reason you know the composition had a composer, has nothing to do with purposefull arangement, it has to do with the fact that every musical peice we've encountered has had a composer, music isn't created naturally. Plus there is some A-tonic music, that I doubt most people would consider purposefull arangement. Life, happens naturally, it's a different process than a musical composition, Thats what your not getting. Things that happen differently require a different explanation.

 

[themadhair]

Oh God it is a quinella, it was the themadhair that started the scientific arguments “Every living species on the planet, from the bacteria to the great whale, from unicorns to the woogwooga sesquatch has DNA.
DNA is made up of four letters. Just. Four. Letters. He thinks that we could father a banana any time (a genetic throwback), because “The difference between me and the banana over there is in the way those four letters are arranged within mine and the banana's DNA”

Is what I said untrue? People have such a hard time accepting that creatures of one form can, over many generations, change significantly. The processes that alter DNA, point mutations, gene duplications, translocations, etc. change the arrangements of those DNA letters. Given the continual genetic change from generation to generation (human children having an average of 175 genetic differences that were not present in their parents) it is almost a preposterous suggestion to claim that DNA could remain fixed.

 

[emiliano]

Lets get on with it; Macro evolution; Scientist calculate that the universe as we know it is about 13.7 billion years old, the planets and the whole of the universe was formed at that time by a mindless fortuities random explosion named The Big Bang, it took an unknown number of year for the earth to cool down and acquire form, how many years did this process took is anybody’s guess, then there was the primordial soup that after billion of years formed simple creature, some kind of tadpoles and these simple creature evolved into what we see all around us complex ones. How many years would this process take? How much of this could have been explained to Moses generation?
Creationism just state that God created everything that is; Science and evolution are in the business of finding the details. Both creationism and evolutionism look at the same evidences, to scriptures the things made, to science the same things. What is clear to me is that evolution and science are not the enemy of religion nor it proves that there is no God, on the contrary it makes us more aware of God’s power and love for us, Even if the problem of complexity were to be resolved and let say that the time/age of the universe is moved back to trillion or gazillion of years, there is still a first cause for the creation and is clearly seen that is an intelligent Designer.

 

[emiliano]

haha You didn't get the point that painted wolf was making, she wasn't saying that bach's music was banging on the paino. She said the universe would be the equivalent of bach banging on the piano, The universe is complete chaos. if you wanted to compare composition to the universe. The other point that I made, is the reason you know the composition had a composer, has nothing to do with purposefull arangement, it has to do with the fact that every musical peice we've encountered has had a composer, music isn't created naturally. Plus there is some A-tonic music, that I doubt most people would consider purposefull arangement. Life, happens naturally, it's a different process than a musical composition, Thats what your not getting. Things that happen differently require a different explanation.

:slap:
How can I get it, when science tells us the exact opposite? There is no chaos in the universe it is not collapsing into an implosion as Maxell’s theory predicts, the planets are at a mathematically precise distance from each other so that this cannot happen, and planet’s orbits are such that they do not crush onto each other. Chaos? :areyoucra It is just like a harmonious melody.

 

[themadhair]

Lets get on with it; Macro evolution; Scientist calculate that the universe as we know it is about 13.7 billion years old…

I ignored the rest of your comment because you first stated macroevolution and then launched into a portion of science that has nothing to do with evolution. Basically, pick one area of science and begin with that ok?

 

[themadhair]

How can I get it, when science tells us the exact opposite? There is no chaos in the universe it is not collapsing into an implosion as Maxell’s theory predicts, the planets are at a mathematically precise distance from each other so that this cannot happen, and planet’s orbits are such that they do not crush onto each other. Chaos? It is just like a harmonious melody.

Are you referring to Maxwell’s equations? I’d recommend you learn what they say, and in particular how they have NO relevance to gravitational systems, before referencing them again.

The planets, and their formation, is pretty well understood in terms of why they are in discrete orbits. Check out the nebular hypothesis. The basic idea is that the collapsing hydrogen gas collapsing under gravity will spin forming the sun and a protoplantetry disc which became the planets. This can be simulated using the equations of gravity and the discrete planetary orbits virtually follows from simple gravitation theory.

 

[emiliano]

You ignore the key reason why your melody example breaks down – it does not display the same common ancestry nested hierarchies that we find in DNA. The single feature that makes DNA such overwhelming proof of common ancestry is the consistency with which extant genomes unilaterally and unwaveringly conform to a strict nested hierarchies – a feature that is absent from compositional music.

Ordered arrangement requires intelligence? Take a look at this post.

Do I smell some Bill Demski and his specified complexity? This should be fun. If you want to make the claim that ‘ordered arrangement’ requires intelligent then please answer the following question:

Please define a useable metric for detecting design. Good luck. This will be interesting.

It going to take time, this specific complexity is a term coined by Paul Davis “The problem, as he sees it, with currently known scientific laws, like the laws of chemistry and physics, is that they are not up to explaining the key feature of life that needs to be explained. That feature is specified complexity. Life is both complex and specified” So in order to solve the problem of complexity it is necessary to change the known scientific laws, like the laws of chemistry and physics, if he do this is it any wonder that He succeed in finding a solution? He makes his own law that agree/proves his theory. You are right it will take a long time and I have little of that at present. Perhaps later but I must tell you that if I am to dictated my own laws of proof I can prove anything.

 

[Tristesse]

:slap:
How can I get it, when science tells us the exact opposite? There is no chaos in the universe it is not collapsing into an implosion as Maxell’s theory predicts, the planets are at a mathematically precise distance from each other so that this cannot happen, and planet’s orbits are such that they do not crush onto each other. Chaos? :areyoucra It is just like a harmonious melody.

Life can't sustain in 99.9999 percent of the universe, so, god in his infinite wisdom decided to create this entire universe, with billions upon billions of planets, and stick us on this one little ball, going around another little ball, in a microscopic little spot in the universe. But it was somehow created for us. The theory of gravity explains the order we notice in the universe, but there is most definitely chaos outside our little ball, you have meteor showers, black holes, I mean it's utter chaos. But anyways, you only took one small portion of my statement, and didn't bother to rebuttal on the rest. I was explaining to you, natural processes require a different explanation than manufactured processes, such as watches buildings, music, etc...

 

[emiliano]

Are you referring to Maxwell’s equations? I’d recommend you learn what they say, and in particular how they have NO relevance to gravitational systems, before referencing them again.

The planets, and their formation, is pretty well understood in terms of why they are in discrete orbits. Check out the nebular hypothesis. The basic idea is that the collapsing hydrogen gas collapsing under gravity will spin forming the sun and a protoplantetry disc which became the planets. This can be simulated using the equations of gravity and the discrete planetary orbits virtually follows from simple gravitation theory.

And this is a chaotic system?

 

[Tristesse]

And this is a chaotic system?

Nobody said the "system" was chaotic. What happens in the universe is chaotic, smaller planets rotate around bigger planets, it's a gravitational pull. Thats just how we know the universe to work.