the science of faith.

[mycorrhiza]

Oh, you are completely right, carbon dating is only used on newer objects, so how does that give proof to evolution?

It doesn't. I just thought you were going to use carbon dating to "disprove" all radiometric dating (which is very common in evolution vs creationism debates, where creationists use examples of carbon datings that show the wrong date because they weren't corectly done). Sorry if I misread your intentions!

You are also talking about dating objects thousands of years old so how do they compensate for altering factors? They can't know all conditions existing in a single area over several thousand years to compensate for factors that might alter their dating system.

The paleontologists have a quite good understanding of the different factors that alter the results and they try to adjust to them. Could you provide me with a few non-creationist paleontologists that state that the datings cannot be accurate enough?

So you have a system you claim helps define the fossil record but it can only be used accurately for a period of time around 3000 years and then only if they know everything that happened over several thousand years to make sure their dating is correct. Hmmm doesn't sound like an accurate system to prove evolution.

According to scientists it can be use quite accurately. What evidence do you have that radiometric dating doesn't work accurately on things older than 3000 years? The different dating methods, both the different radiometric dating methods and other non-radiometric dating methods, are consistent with eachother. Even if every single scientific dating method turned out to be wrong, how does this disprove evolution?

You are correct that most paleontologist believe in evolution but what do you expect since their job is to provide evidence of evolution? I don't know many people who believe in creation who would want to spend their entire lives trying to prove something they don't believe. That includes myself, I love every aspect of geology but I will not touch paleontology as a professional occupation.

Paleontology is not simply about providing evidence of evolution. Evolution has enough evidence already. What paleontology is about is the study of non-living life forms, no matter if they evolved or not.

You mentioned that there are no transitional fossils anywhere. Do you have any evidence of this? Because I've seen plenty of examples of fossils of animals in between two cathegories. Every single fossil is transitional, though, as evolution doesn't stop with any species, it keeps on going.

You wanted evidence for "macro evolution" (which in biology is just the same process as "micro evolution"), so here:
Observed Instances of Speciation

It has been observed plenty of times. A majority of all biologists (about 99,9%) agree that evolution does happen and there has been no scientific evidence to support the notion that all currently living animals were created. Could you provide me with a single peer-reviewed scientific paper from the last 15 years that provides evidence against evolution as a whole?

Also, try not to confuse abiogenesis and evolution. They're different fields of science that don't depend on eachother.

 

[gseeker]

Uh, okay let me ask you something, did you even read the paper you posted the link to? Maybe you didn't understand what he was really saying? I am not and have not decried that what people call micro evolution is false, just that macro evolution is not a fact. Lets break down what this authors is actually saying. Well to began with in one line he will refer to a variation of species and in the next he will call a new species. They are all just variations of the same species with genetic traits development. From being confined or fed on certain foods. A sheep is still a sheep a fly is still a fly. Just because two creatures wont mate does in no way mean that they are a new species! Where do they even reach that conclusion? LOL the flyswatter didn't develop gills on there way to becoming fish and the sheep didn't start developing scales to became reptiles. If the ability to mate or to chose not to mate is now the definition of species then things have really changed in the past ten years. Hmm I wonder if they changed the meaning of the term species before or after the study. If you change the meaning of a single word in a sentence then you can change the entire meaning of that sentence and even the paragraph that sentence is found in.

 

[gseeker]

The Evolutionary Use of the Terms, Primitive, Intermediate & Lineage.
This is on paleontology but it is the same system your biologist is trying to use.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Uh, okay let me ask you something, did you even read the paper you posted the link to? Maybe you didn't understand what he was really saying? I am not and have not decried that what people call micro evolution is false, just that macro evolution is not a fact. Lets break down what this authors is actually saying. Well to began with in one line he will refer to a variation of species and in the next he will call a new species. They are all just variations of the same species with genetic traits development. From being confined or fed on certain foods. A sheep is still a sheep a fly is still a fly. Just because two creatures wont mate does in no way mean that they are a new species! Where do they even reach that conclusion? LOL the flyswatter didn't develop gills on there way to becoming fish and the sheep didn't start developing scales to became reptiles. If the ability to mate or to chose not to mate is now the definition of species then things have really changed in the past ten years. Hmm I wonder if they changed the meaning of the term species before or after the study. If you change the meaning of a single word in a sentence then you can change the entire meaning of that sentence and even the paragraph that sentence is found in.

So what is your definition of species if not animals that can interbreed? No serious scientist is suggesting that a sheep will turn into a fish, because evolution doesn't work that way. Fly isn't a single species, it's an order that contains very many species.

You can't separate microevolution and macroevolution, because they're the same process.

Here's a transitional fossil:
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It lies between fish and tetrapods.

 

[McBell]

I have pointed out my credentials what are yours?

Actually, all you did was make some claims as to what you think makes you qualified to tell flat out lies, spread blatant falsehoods, and pretty much make a complete fool of yourself showing off your extreme ignorance of what evolution is and is not.

Nice try though.

 

[outhouse]

The Evolutionary Use of the Terms, Primitive, Intermediate & Lineage.
This is on paleontology but it is the same system your biologist is trying to use.

you dont get it do you?


Laurence D Smart is a known hack who has produced nothing useful in biology :slap:

 

[outhouse]

just that macro evolution is not a fact

well your wrong again


speciation and all of evolution is well known, and many facts of what you call macro evolution are in hand.



what you call macro evolution is also misused by creationist like you. it is rarely used in biology and even micro evolution, is still just the process of evolution working.


so here you say yes evolution is real [FACEPALM]

 

[gseeker]

you dont get it do you?


Laurence D Smart is a known hack who has produced nothing useful in biology :slap:

Micro evolution is not macro evolution on a smaller scale even many of your on evolution scientists have said that in published papers!
They have said in many times and in many places that the changes created through genetic changes in a species does not prove macro evolution since new genetic material would have to be introduced to create changes outside of a species. so that is your definition of species whether two groups can or will mate? By that same definition a tiger and a lion and a horse and a zebra are the same species but a domesticated sheep and wild sheep aren't the same species and two different groups of flies aren't the same because they don't mate? :drool: So I guess pheromones, diet, and physical trait appeal has nothing to do with it?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Micro evolution is not macro evolution on a smaller scale even many of your on evolution scientists have said that in published papers!

If it's not what the evolutionary scientists say it is, then what is it? I believe that the usage of the term should be determined by the ones who use it in it's correct context.

They have said in many times and in many places that the changes created through genetic changes in a species does not prove macro evolution since new genetic material would have to be introduced to create changes outside of a species.

They have? New genetic material is introduced all the time, through mutations.

So that is your definition of species whether two groups can or will mate? By that same definition a tiger and a lion and a horse and a zebra are the same species but a domesticated sheep and wild sheep aren't the same species and two different groups of flies aren't the same because they don't mate? :drool: So I guess pheromones, diet, and physical trait appeal has nothing to do with it?

While tigers and lions occasionally produce fertile offspring, they generally don't reproduce and are genetically different enough to not be considered the same species. They're very closely related, though. Yes, sheep and wild sheep are two different species and the same goes for the fruit flies. They might belong to the same genus, but they're still different species or subspecies. What I'm wondering, however, is how YOU define species.

 

[gseeker]

If it's not what the evolutionary scientists say it is, then what is it? I believe that the usage of the term should be determined by the ones who use it in it's correct context.

They have? New genetic material is introduced all the time, through mutations.

While tigers and lions occasionally produce fertile offspring, they generally don't reproduce and are genetically different enough to not be considered the same species. They're very closely related, though. Yes, sheep and wild sheep are two different species and the same goes for the fruit flies. They might belong to the same genus, but they're still different species or subspecies. What I'm wondering, however, is how YOU define species.

You are seriously sticking by the religious doctrine of evolution. You say that the sheep and the fruit flies in that study became different species because they couldn't mate but that a tiger and a lion were different species even though they could and have mated? Your definition for what makes a species seems to be in conflict. You also didn't make a single mention of the last part of my statement that there are many reasons why two animals wouldn't reproduce. You choose to completely ignore the science of sexuality in your pursuit of evolutionary science.

 

[gseeker]

Chapter 9: Do Mutations Produce New Life Forms?
Here is a little reading material on genetic mutations for you. Now I know the scientist who wrote it is a creationist so has no credibility by your definition but he does quote evolution scientists and it is a good read.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You are seriously sticking by the religious doctrine of evolution. You say that the sheep and the fruit flies in that study became different species because they couldn't mate but that a tiger and a lion were different species even though they could and have mated? Your definition for what makes a species seems to be in conflict. You also didn't make a single mention of the last part of my statement that there are many reasons why two animals wouldn't reproduce. You choose to completely ignore the science of sexuality in your pursuit of evolutionary science.

If you're gonna call evolution a religious doctrine, then we need to call gravity, atoms, germs and all of modern medicine religious doctrines too. It's science, not religion and evolution is proved beyond any doubt whatsoever in the scientific community no matter how much creationists don't want this to be the case. You don't need to accept evolution, but just must recognize that it's viewed as a fact by the huge majority of the scientific community and that there is no good scientific evidence against it.

Yes, defining a species is quite complex. Scientists may well reclassify tigers and lions to belong to the same species in the future if the genetic evidence supports it. The very fact that it's difficult is evidence of evolution. If there actually were separate "kinds", then it would be a much easier process.

There are many reasons why animals wont mate, indeed. The meaning of species is cannot, rather than wont, but as we've seen there are exceptions, like lions and tigers that can produce fertile offspring. There are several examples of speciation in plants where most things associated with animal sexuality don't apply, so even if the experiments on animals didn't produce new species, but rather subspecies or variations, there are plenty of observed cases of plant speciation. Strawberries are a great example, and Fragaria x vescana (which has the great name of smulgubbe, crumb-man, in Swedish). The first was created by more natural methods and the second was created by inducing polyploidy in wild strawberries so that they could produce fertile offspring with garden strawberries.


Could you please provide your definition of species?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Chapter 9: Do Mutations Produce New Life Forms?
Here is a little reading material on genetic mutations for you. Now I know the scientist who wrote it is a creationist so has no credibility by your definition but he does quote evolution scientists and it is a good read.

Sorry to sound harsh, but that article was just awful. Quote mining, outdated sources (one saying that there is no evidence for plant evolution is just one scientists and it's 51 years old and A LOT has happened since then), confusing abiogenesis and evolution, straight up lying (like saying that 99,9% of all mutations are harmful, since most are neutral), using the word "kind" when it has no place in science, etc

Not a single source was newer than 31 years and just because a single person says "there's no evidence" doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence.

Creationist scientists should, like all other scientists, use scientific method and submit their findings for peer review, so if you could provide me with a few peer-reviewed papers (from the last 10 years) giving evidence against evolution, that would be great!

 

[Astravalon]

There's a huge difference between accepting scientific evidence even though you personally haven't observed it and accepting something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Accepting the existence of unicorns is not the same thing as accepting that the Earth moves around the Sun.

True to a point, though it may depend on where one is starting from. For instance, if I have lived out in the middle of nowhere, my entire life, with no external source of information on the subject whatsoever, I would have little reason to believe that the Earth revolves around anything, or that it isn't as flat as a pancake (in such a scenario, I may not even believe pancakes exist ... which would be very, very sad ).

-

 

[McBell]

Sorry to sound harsh, but that article was just awful. Quote mining, outdated sources (one saying that there is no evidence for plant evolution is just one scientists and it's 51 years old and A LOT has happened since then), confusing abiogenesis and evolution, straight up lying (like saying that 99,9% of all mutations are harmful, since most are neutral), using the word "kind" when it has no place in science, etc

Not a single source was newer than 31 years and just because a single person says "there's no evidence" doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence.

Creationist scientists should, like all other scientists, use scientific method and submit their findings for peer review, so if you could provide me with a few peer-reviewed papers (from the last 10 years) giving evidence against evolution, that would be great!

Awful?
You give it far to much credit...

 

[gseeker]

Again remember that I'm not arguing creation vs evolution, and I'm not saying creation is a fact. I'm just arguing that the evidence we have can be interpreted to be evolution or God only on faith. What you call scientific fact has changed multiple times in the past. You can't even define species so you instead accept some very broad definition that helps blur the lines between species to make it easier to claim evolution is fact.

 

[McBell]

Again remember that I'm not arguing creation vs evolution, and I'm not saying creation is a fact. I'm just arguing that the evidence we have can be interpreted to be evolution or God only on faith. What you call scientific fact has changed multiple times in the past. You can't even define species so you instead accept some very broad definition that helps blur the lines between species to make it easier to claim evolution is fact.

*climbs up onto pontoon boat*

 

[mycorrhiza]

Again remember that I'm not arguing creation vs evolution, and I'm not saying creation is a fact. I'm just arguing that the evidence we have can be interpreted to be evolution or God only on faith.

Okay, let's look at it like this:

Imagine that the debate was instead between homeopathy and modern medicine. Would you say that medical cures and homeopathic cures are both accepted on faith, despite the scientific support for one and the lack of for the other?

You can interpret it as evidence of God all you want, but that has no stand in science, as God isn't empirically verifiable. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with faith, it's simply trusting the evidence. All creationist sources I have seen have to use bad methods, including lying, to make the evidence fit their agenda, and that simply isn't good science. Sure, I could try to interpret the fossil record as evidence that magic gnomes assemble bones into non-existing animals in their spare time, but that doesn't mean that it's just as correct as saying that those animals actually existed. One uses scientific method and the other does not. Sorry for the crazy example, but I used it to prove a point. I'm not saying that God is equal to magic gnomes, just that they both have no place in science as they cannot be verified. Scientists can believe in both gnomes and God, but they shouldn't try to bring unfalsifiable concepts into science, because if it isn't falsifiable then it isn't science.

That doesn't mean that you need to accept evolution at all, just that you recognize it for what it is and see that it isn't accepted on faith any more than gravity or medicine is.

What you call scientific fact has changed multiple times in the past. You can't even define species so you instead accept some very broad definition that helps blur the lines between species to make it easier to claim evolution is fact.

Yes, and scientific change means progress. However, that science has changed doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. Evolution has been directly observed and there's plenty of evidence for it. The specifics and mechanics we know about evolution might change in the future, but that evolution itself takes place is a scientific fact.

It is difficult to decide what a species is because animals don't exist in set kinds. And I think I've asked you three times now: What is your definition of species?

 

[Astravalon]

Let me make this as simple as possible for you people. Have you yourself seen or experienced everything you believe in or do you just accept that somewhere some time and in some way some one has seen it or studied it? That is called faith, you believe in something you haven't seen or experienced yourself. Often times its something you can't observe or study due to lack of equipment, opportunity or education. If you read two conflicting studies, which do you believe in? There are plenty of conflicting scientific studies. You also have to understand that a person has a selfish motivation to prove their own theories so knowing that you must put faith and just trust that the study hasn't been made in a fraudulent way or written up in a slanted way to prove their point. If you think a scientists is going to be anymore honest or trust worthy than the next man then you are lying to yourself. Face it, you believe most of what you believe on faith because you haven't seen it and in a lot of cases can't see the evidence with your own eyes again due to education, time constraints, and lack of proper equipment. You believe in the religion of science because you believe by faith.

On a somewhat related note, this is actually why I've scaled way back on reading newspapers or watching the news. I've gotten so skeptical -- for all I know the media is deliberately applying the same panic-inducing nonsense as that associated with the old War of the Worlds radio broadcast back in the 30s. I'm not about to (nor am I capable of) dashing out there to verify each and every doom-n-gloom report that flashes across the TV screen or headlines the newspaper, and the skeptic in me has a hunch that's just what the news media is counting on. So I believe very little if any of it, and am much happier for it. I would rather spend my faith on something less ... I dunno .. toxic?

Sorry for the slight digression there ...

I can tell you to poor out a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle on the table over and over again until all the pieces land in just the right way to create a perfect picture but we both know that isn't going to happen. Existence is billions of times more complex than that but yet people who don't beloved in God think that it just simply happens completely ignoring the laws of science, the perfect balance of ecology, and every perfect function in life. Simply saying that science just happened requires way more faith than belief that a Creator made it happen.

So the Mona Lisa portrait didn't just happen by knocking over cans of paint onto the canvas? (Although, aren't there works of art out there that -- like what's said about evolution -- seem to have no goal and therefore look like spilled paint... and they sell for millions? )

When scientific claims are disproven, they stop being used.

I wish that were always true, because then our doctors would stop harassing us to have medical procedures done which are known to carry side-effects that are worse than their supposed cure.

As I've said though, there is scientific evidence of God, the very essence of science and the laws of nature, the very fact it exists is evidence of an intelligent Creator.

I think one of the things which fuels these sorts of discussions is the fact that folks have different ideas of what constitutes "evidence".

For example, the simple fact that the newspaper says that a gang smashed a bunch of car-windows in a neighboring town is, for some, ample evidence that it actually happened. However, for those who require something more tangible before it can be called "evidence", unless they have actually seen the incident for themselves they might not buy it (i.e., were windows really smashed, and if so, was it actually a gang that did it, or were people hired to do it for some ulterior motive such as instilling fear in the neighborhood to increase car- or house-alarm sales, etc.)

Just saw this on FB, thought it was appropriate:

This.


-

-

 

[gseeker]

Okay, let's look at it like this:

Imagine that the debate was instead between homeopathy and modern medicine. Would you say that medical cures and homeopathic cures are both accepted on faith, despite the scientific support for one and the lack of for the other?

You can interpret it as evidence of God all you want, but that has no stand in science, as God isn't empirically verifiable. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with faith, it's simply trusting the evidence. All creationist sources I have seen have to use bad methods, including lying, to make the evidence fit their agenda, and that simply isn't good science. Sure, I could try to interpret the fossil record as evidence that magic gnomes assemble bones into non-existing animals in their spare time, but that doesn't mean that it's just as correct as saying that those animals actually existed. One uses scientific method and the other does not. Sorry for the crazy example, but I used it to prove a point. I'm not saying that God is equal to magic gnomes, just that they both have no place in science as they cannot be verified. Scientists can believe in both gnomes and God, but they shouldn't try to bring unfalsifiable concepts into science, because if it isn't falsifiable then it isn't science.

That doesn't mean that you need to accept evolution at all, just that you recognize it for what it is and see that it isn't accepted on faith any more than gravity or medicine is.

Yes, and scientific change means progress. However, that science has changed doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. Evolution has been directly observed and there's plenty of evidence for it. The specifics and mechanics we know about evolution might change in the future, but that evolution itself takes place is a scientific fact.

It is difficult to decide what a species is because animals don't exist in set kinds. And I think I've asked you three times now: What is your definition of species?

I've always understood species to be a group with similar traits within a genus that is accepted by multiple people to be a species. As I've said the definition has changed over time to fit the idea of evolution. Fixity of Species - Answers in Genesis. Since there is confusion in species about where micro and macro evolution began and end lets talk about genus. For macro evolution to be proven there would have to be changes in genus not just species. Where is your evidence for that?