I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Audie]

Why do you make that claim? Tree rings, for the most part, are one per year. Occasionally an extra ring can be found but those can usually be found by cross dating. Using tree rings C14 levels can be calibrated back to 10,000 years. Though as I pointed out elsewhere that does not matter. C14 is all but worthless in evolution since it covers such a short time span. Older strata are dated by other method of radiometric dating than C14.

First, he has not said how accurate it is or is not.
To ten seconds?

Second, he and his can always-and dependably will-
bring up C14 supposedly detected in diamonds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, he has not said how accurate it is or is not.
To ten seconds?

Second, he and his can always-and dependably will-
bring up C14 supposedly detected in diamonds.

Probably just a matter of time for the latter. What is strange is that creationists seem to think that any error at all in a measurement somehow refutes it when it is well known that all measurement have a margin of error to them. Even if C14 could not be calibrated the dates would still be of use. The amount of error would simply be larger.

 

[Audie]

Probably just a matter of time for the latter. What is strange is that creationists seem to think that any error at all in a measurement somehow refutes it when it is well known that all measurement have a margin of error to them. Even if C14 could not be calibrated the dates would still be of use. The amount of error would simply be larger.

If the no- percent- error- ever standard were applied to the "Holy" bible, said document would be refuted and we could be done with a lot of foolishness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Big S, and mr chick tract.

Did somebody say "Chick Tract"?

The only way to watch a Chick Tract is with Hugo and Jake.

 

[SomeRandom]

Did somebody say "Chick Tract"?

The only way to watch a Chick Tract is with Hugo and Jake.

Omg *fangirl squee*
My favourite thing to come out of chick tracts. My second fave thing is the (I'm assuming tongue in cheek parody) movie Dark Dungeons based off the tract with the same name. A must for any Chick fan lol! Hopefully it will appear on a Cinema Snob episode or at least DVR Hell.
Also I love it when Hugo and Jake have guests take on a tract.
AronRa is one of my personal favourites.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did somebody say "Chick Tract"?

The only way to watch a Chick Tract is with Hugo and Jake.

Now you know where my avatar comes from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you know where my avatar comes from.

Yes, I knew that I had seen it before somewhere. I saw it as I want through that video again.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Probably just a matter of time for the latter. What is strange is that creationists seem to think that any error at all in a measurement somehow refutes it when it is well known that all measurement have a margin of error to them. Even if C14 could not be calibrated the dates would still be of use. The amount of error would simply be larger.

It is rather interesting that creationists trust no measurement that has error bars while scientists trust no measurement that lacks error bars.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is rather interesting that creationists trust no measurement that has error bars while scientists trust no measurement that lacks error bars.

Ok, I gotta ask......did you come up with that yourself? Because that's awesome.......and I intend to borrow it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Ok, I gotta ask......did you come up with that yourself? Because that's awesome.......and I intend to borrow it.

I came up with it on my own, and you are free to use it as you wish. Proper citation would be appreciated, but certainly not required.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

you seem to suggest that the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow for the theory of evolution.

FYI, we don’t deny the evidence of small mutations In the genome , like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics...but those organisms will always be bacteria! Or Darwin’s finches, with their beak adaptations...but they’ll always be finches.

But descent with modification (Common Descent) is not accepted. There is simply no concrete evidence.
One other thing: we are not YEC’s, either. The account of Day 6 had too much going on, for it to have been a literal 24 hours. And Day 7 (Jehovah God’s rest day), Paul’s discussion in Hebrews 4 indicates it’s still continuing.

Glad you’re back, btw! Hope you recover well....best wishes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

FYI, we don’t deny the evidence of small mutations In the genome , like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics...but those organisms will always be bacteria! Or Darwin’s finches, with their beak adaptations...but they’ll always be finches.

But descent with modification (Common Descent) is not accepted. There is simply no concrete evidence.

So what is your accepted explanation for the observed nested hierarchy in the fossil record and genetics?

 

[1robin]

FYI, we don’t deny the evidence of small mutations In the genome , like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics...but those organisms will always be bacteria! Or Darwin’s finches, with their beak adaptations...but they’ll always be finches.

Hey HC. You may not believe that JW doctrine contradicts the theory of macroevolution but the person I responded to built arguments based on the claim that it does. If you do not believe that it does then what I said would not apply to you but it would still apply to the person a responded to.

Judging from what you posted we are both in agreement. However that does not mean that the person I was talking to is mistaken about JW doctrine.

But descent with modification (Common Descent) is not accepted. There is simply no concrete evidence. One other thing: we are not YEC’s, either. The account of Day 6 had too much going on, for it to have been a literal 24 hours. And Day 7 (Jehovah God’s rest day), Paul’s discussion in Hebrews 4 indicates it’s still continuing.

Glad you’re back, btw! Hope you recover well....best wishes.

There is some evidence of macroevolution but I do not find it compelling and no one ever has or ever will observe one kind of creature become another kind. By kind I mean creatures able to breed with each other. I am not really a YEC either. As usual there is not a lot of disagreement between us. Keep in mind that even if my original argument would not apply to you it would still apply to the person I responded to, even though your both JWs. I have heard just about every argument for and against the days of creation being literal 24 hour days and / or them being epochs. Both are good arguments with significant evidence for them. I have not yet been able to draw a firm conclusion either way nor is it really important to do so.

Thanks for your well wishes, I am currently doing a little better.

 

[metis]

There is some evidence of macroevolution but I do not find it compelling and no one ever has or ever will observe one kind of creature become another kind.

False, as we've seen with not only the fossil record but also the extensive genome testing. Geneticists well know that "macro-evolution" has taken place because there simply is not one shred of evidence, nor even basic logic, that micro somehow miraculously stops just before becoming macro. If you were to be correct, then the vast majority of geneticists would agree with you-- but they don't.

And if one truly believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis, then they should well know that creation stopped at the end of the 6th day, and yet some have it that God just kept creating and creating and creating... in order to produce new "kinds".

So, no matter whether one uses actual science or literalistic interpretations of the Creation accounts, the rather clear verdict is that life evolves.

IOW, all matter appears to change over time, and genes are matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey HC. You may not believe that JW doctrine contradicts the theory of macroevolution but the person I responded to built arguments based on the claim that it does. If you do not believe that it does then what I said would not apply to you but it would still apply to the person a responded to.

Judging from what you posted we are both in agreement. However that does not mean that the person I was talking to is mistaken about JW doctrine.

There is some evidence of macroevolution but I do not find it compelling and no one ever has or ever will observe one kind of creature become another kind. By kind I mean creatures able to breed with each other. I am not really a YEC either. As usual there is not a lot of disagreement between us. Keep in mind that even if my original argument would not apply to you it would still apply to the person I responded to, even though your both JWs. I have heard just about every argument for and against the days of creation being literal 24 hour days and / or them being epochs. Both are good arguments with significant evidence for them. I have not yet been able to draw a firm conclusion either way nor is it really important to do so.

Thanks for your well wishes, I am currently doing a little better.

The "change of kinds" is a common misunderstanding of evolution by creationists. There is no "change in kind" in evolution. For example creationists often ask when man stopped "being an ape". Man still is an ape. He never quit being one. Just as man is still a mammal, a larger biological group that we belong to. And man still is a tetrapod (four limbed being) an even larger biological group that we belong to. We are still vertebrates, we are still multicellular and we are still eukaryotes.

The "change of kinds" of evolution that creationists picture would actually disprove the theory of evolution. For example a cat cannot evolve into a dog. Their ancestors took different paths in their evolution and there is no going back. Just as you can't unburn a log a species cannot "un-evolve".

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

FYI, we don’t deny the evidence of small mutations In the genome , like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics...but those organisms will always be bacteria! Or Darwin’s finches, with their beak adaptations...but they’ll always be finches.

Humans are primates. Chimps are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. It is just primates becoming primates. So where is the problem?

Also, can you show us a genetic difference between the human and chimp genomes that could not be produced by "small mutations"?

But descent with modification (Common Descent) is not accepted. There is simply no concrete evidence.

"First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Chimps and humans share over 200,000 ERVs. That is as concrete as it gets.

 

[1robin]

False, as we've seen with not only the fossil record but also the extensive genome testing. Geneticists well know that "macro-evolution" has taken place because there simply is not one shred of evidence, nor even basic logic, that micro somehow miraculously stops just before becoming macro. If you were to be correct, then the vast majority of geneticists would agree with you-- but they don't.

Wrong, you didn't read what I said carefully. I said that I do not find the evidence for macroevolution convincing. I am the greatest possible expert in the entire history of humanity concerning whether I find evidence convincing or not and in this case I do not.

Moving on........ No geneticist who has ever lived knows that macroevolution has occurred. Since you did not post any evidence what so ever for macroevolution there is little here to evaluate. There is nothing miraculous about microevolution being true and macroevolution not. Not that I even said that. I made a claim about what I consider to be true, you however made a claim to certainty there for you (not I) must provide proof. You haven't nor can you ever do so. Claiming that anything is true because it is the most popular is incorrect and is a logical fallacy, but if it was true then since more biologists have lacked belief in evolution (or ever heard of it) than have believed in it that would make it false. So far you have only posted a comedy of irrelevancy and / or error. Not a single piece of even bad evidence.

And if one truly believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis, then they should well know that creation stopped at the end of the 6th day, and yet some have it that God just kept creating and creating and creating... in order to produce new "kinds".

What are you doing? First you responded with something I never said and are now responding to the exact opposite of what I said. I said I held no firm position concerning the days of creation. Evolution is one of the most useless subjects imaginable and so I don't give a rip one way or the other

So, no matter whether one uses actual science or literalistic interpretations of the Creation accounts, the rather clear verdict is that life evolves.

You have not posted any science what so ever, actual or otherwise. The bible clearly states that evolution does occur. So everything that has actually been observed is consistent with the bible. The bible simply suggests that evolution is confined to breeding population. Anything beyond this point has never nor will it ever be observed and is therefore not science. So far your really striking out.

IOW, all matter appears to change over time, and genes are matter.

I said nothing one way or the other about matter in general. I don't know what your talking about. What is true of matter is not necessarily true about evolution. Just because ice turns into water has nothing at all to do with a cow becoming a whale. I said evidence for macroevolution exists (not that you posted any) but that I find it compelling which is a statement of objective fact. You really need to recalibrate and try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, you didn't read what I said carefully. I said that I do not find the evidence for macroevolution convincing. I am the greatest possible expert in the entire history of humanity concerning whether I find evidence convincing or not and in this case I do not.

Moving on........ No geneticist who has ever lived knows that macroevolution has occurred. Since you did not post any evidence what so ever for macroevolution there is little here to evaluate. There is nothing miraculous about microevolution being true and macroevolution not. Not that I even said that. I made a claim about what I consider to be true, you however made a claim to certainty there for you (not I) must provide proof. You haven't nor can you ever do so. Claiming that anything is true because it is the most popular is incorrect and is a logical fallacy, but if it was true then since more biologists have lacked belief in evolution (or ever heard of it) than have believed in it that would make it false. So far you have only posted a comedy of irrelevancy and / or error. Not a single piece of even bad evidence.


What are you doing? First you responded with something I never said and are now responding to the exact opposite of what I said. I said I held no firm position concerning the days of creation. Evolution is one of the most useless subjects imaginable and so I don't give a rip one way or the other

You have not posted any science what so ever, actual or otherwise. The bible clearly states that evolution does occur. So everything that has actually been observed is consistent with the bible. The bible simply suggests that evolution is confined to breeding population. Anything beyond this point has never nor will it ever be observed and is therefore not science. So far your really striking out.

I said nothing one way or the other about matter in general. I don't know what your talking about. What is true of matter is not necessarily true about evolution. Just because ice turns into water has nothing at all to do with a cow becoming a whale. I said evidence for macroevolution exists (not that you posted any) but that I find it compelling which is a statement of objective fact. You really need to recalibrate and try again.

Geneticists do know that macro-evolution has occurred. The ERV's that @Thermos aquaticus mentioned alone are more than ample evidence of our relationship to other apes.

Instead of denying evidence perhaps you should be asking questions about it? It is not unusual for those that do not understand a subject to be unconvinced. I have seen that with many different subjects and have been on the wrong side myself at times. Finding out why one is wrong is how one learns.

 

[1robin]

The "change of kinds" is a common misunderstanding of evolution by creationists.

It is not a creationist. It is a biblical term. I believe I agree with you in most cases but I do not necessarily agree with the ways you stated your conclusions.

There is no "change in kind" in evolution. For example creationists often ask when man stopped "being an ape". Man still is an ape. He never quit being one. Just as man is still a mammal, a larger biological group that we belong to. And man still is a tetrapod (four limbed being) an even larger biological group that we belong to. We are still vertebrates, we are still multicellular and we are still eukaryotes.

The biblical term "kind" is thought to correspond to a breeding population. Since breeding populations do change then changes within kinds do occur. The disagreement concerns whether evolution "only" occurs within a kind of creature. Man, mammal, and ape are simply words and have nothing to do with what each actually are. The only way these categorical terms of convenience mean anything in this context is if it can be shown that an earlier mammal became ape or if man descended from an ape. If not, they are irrelevant window-dressing. I am discussing biology, not taxonomy, nor etymology. In summary I claimed that I do not believe that a specific population that can interbreed will ever become a different interbreeding population over time, not what terms are using to describe them.

The "change of kinds" of evolution that creationists picture would actually disprove the theory of evolution. For example a cat cannot evolve into a dog. Their ancestors took different paths in their evolution and there is no going back. Just as you can't unburn a log a species cannot "un-evolve".

Let me clarify this.

1. Microevolution or change within a kind- The ability of a population to biologically change within groups that can interbreed.

2. Macroevolution or common decent - The ability of a population that can interbreed to biologically change into another breeding population.

I believe that microevolution actually occurs but doubt if macroevolution does. Microevolution is observed, macroevolution will never be observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a creationist. It is a biblical term. I believe I agree with you in most cases but I do not necessarily agree with the ways you stated your conclusions.

Yes, a poor term that does not match reality.

The biblical term "kind" is thought to correspond to a breeding population. Since breeding populations do change then changes within kinds do occur. The disagreement concerns whether evolution "only" occurs within a kind of creature. Man, mammal, and ape are simply words and have nothing to do with what each actually are. The only way these categorical terms of convenience mean anything in this context is if it can be shown that an earlier mammal became ape or if man descended from an ape. If not, they are irrelevant window-dressing. I am discussing biology, not taxonomy, nor etymology. In summary I claimed that I do not believe that a specific population that can interbreed will ever become a different interbreeding population over time, not what terms are using to describe them.

This is merely moving the goal posts. But if lions and tigers and cats are the same "kind" then so are we and other apes, in fact that would be us and all primates.

Let me clarify this.

1. Microevolution or change within a kind- The ability of a population to biologically change within groups that can interbreed.

2. Macroevolution or common decent - The ability of a population that can interbreed to biologically change into another breeding population.

I believe that microevolution actually occurs but doubt if macroevolution does. Microevolution is observed, macroevolution will never be observed.

Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level and has been directly observed. I repeat, it has been observed. In fact we can see it in action with ring species.