Jump to content

Separation of Church and State: A Fallacy


Recommended Posts

quote:

because its "blueprint" will NEVER change.


That statement is actually FALSE. Genomes are mutating, be it on a very small, scale all the time. In fact it's a wonder they remain as constant as they do. When we reproduce, the chromosomes in our germ cells undergo a process known as homologous recombination, which means that portions of homologous chromosomes break, swap over and recombine. This process is pretty efficient, but not perfect and mistakes do occur, leading to point mutations, deletions etc. Thus the genome has changed, ever so slightly. These changes may be disastrous, in the case of genetic diseases, passive or beneficial. The point is, change has occurred. Mistakes can also occur in the processing of RNA and in DNA replication. Now you might think that this happens to us all, all of the time, but there is a fairly efficient repair mechanism going on which can repair mistakes and mismatches, but it is not 100% efficient. Such mutations may only occur once every few generations, but it shows that the genome is dynamic.

Another point that Creationists try to put forward is how did cells miraculously appear? well it's quite simple really; take an aqeuos solution and add some phospholipids to it. At a certain concentration, the phospholipids form vesicles, which are spherical bodies where the hydrophilic ends are in contact with the water and each other, and the hydrophobic tails point away from the water and associate with each other. This can form a bilayer, which is the exact basis for the cellular membrane seen in all living organisms.

Scriv, the article I mentioned about the whale was a scientific paper the peer-reviewed science journal Nature. Unless you can get to a library, you won't be able to read it online unless you have a subscription.

Now, I really must get on with my research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmmm... So much stuff to go through, Please forgive me for not talking about each "fact."

Yes, very interesting stories. I'm sorry creating a transitional form from a single bone or tooth is not science, it's desperation.

The Horse series:

Why have these fossils been found all over the world and not together. Whouldn't it be logical that the next "step" would be in the same location or near the location of the previous? Why do the vertebrae and rib counts jump around so much? I'll end this one with a quote:

quote:


"l admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...".

Dr. Niles Eldredge


Ardipithecus ramidus:

quote:


FOSSILIZED bones of a hominid, which was said to be ancestral to the famous 'Lucy' skeleton, were found in late 1994 in Ethiopia. The creature was categorized as Australopithecus ramidus, and was hailed in newspapers as the oldest human ancestor. The discoverer, Tim White, and his Ethiopian colleagues, have since unearthed a nearly complete skeleton of the same creature. It can now be seen to be too chimp-like to be claimed as a human ancestor, and has been renamed Ardipithecus ramidus and put in a completely new genus.

National Geographic, March 1996 (p. 117)


I find it very interesting that "hominid succession" contains so much filler about each "link" when most have either been reclassified or are based off of a single bone or tooth. This isn't fact or evidence, it is extreme speculation. It has plagued those trying desperately to "prove" evolution for years, take for instance the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, the Celocanth, and others. All have been found to be hoaxes or creatures that are still alive and UNCHANGED.

I am not putting Creation down as a science, it is not. It is based on faith and faith is not science. However looking at the complexity of this world we can use science to understand God's creation. Evolution too is not a science, it has not been proved and neither will it be proved. It is a desperate attempt to remove God from the picture so fallen man can justify his actions. With such exaggerated "evidence" and false series, Evolution must be taken on FAITH, as such it is not a science.

Aaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few thoughts to throw in, I'm not really a part of this argument as deeply as many of you, and don't seek to argue on this one, just throwing in some views.

Evolutions meaning has itself "evolved" no pun intended. In it's original inception evolution really meant great leaps forward

ape 2 man

When in todays biological terms, evolution simply means change. Something that can't be disagreed with because we all know that things change. Evolution's original meaning is what is being debated alot of times.

And about the 7 days thing, God does give examples in the bible where he refers to days as meaning years. It is always possible that the 7 days symbolizes 7 earth years.

Revelation for instance in some parts is translated as years and in others days when talking about the same time frame of the tribulation.

I find it interesting to note that if the earth's beginning took 7 years, so will it's end.

I've read some very convincing stuff analyzing prophecy that leads me to believe that God in fact does exist, as there are small "miracles" and big ones that have happened throughout our history that cannot be explained scientifically.

Just some thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darwin used to the term evolution to describe the change brought about by natural selection. Darwin considered this change to be constant and gradual. It has later been shown (by Gould and Dawkins) that evolution in fact works in spurts.

it's a case of survival of the fittest. Natural selection pressure dictates the rate of evolution. Natural disasters create pressure. Man has no pressure to evolve because man can change his surroundings to his suitings, he can nullify selection pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


When in todays biological terms, evolution simply means change. Something that can't be disagreed with because we all know that things change. Evolution's original meaning is what is being debated alot of times.

Not quite accurate. In today's terms, "evolution" means an adaptive change.

quote:


Is this what you were speaking of when you stated ALL those logical steps have failed?

No, I think of the logical inconsistancies in the millions of mathematical models created. Further, I think about the odds of me winning the Power Ball then I think that evolution into intelligence would be akin to me winning the Power Ball 5 million times in a period of 2000 years.

quote:


I've read some very convincing stuff analyzing prophecy that leads me to believe that God in fact does exist, as there are small "miracles" and big ones that have happened throughout our history that cannot be explained scientifically.

On a personal note, I've had small miracles happen to me personally. I know that God exists ... he talks to me.

quote:


Darwin used to the term evolution to describe the change brought about by natural selection. Darwin considered this change to be constant and gradual. It has later been shown (by Gould and Dawkins) that evolution in fact works in spurts.

It was NOT "shown" by them, it was merely stipulated. There's no more evidence of that theory than the gradual theory. In fact, that theory was put forth not with especially high evidence or with demeriting evidence to the contrary, they made it in order to compensate for the lack of transitional fossils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* I just spent the last two hours reading various editorials at http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/. Even the pages that both Melcar and Jaguar pointed out. But I really didn't find anything that advanced either argument in either direction.

What I see happen a lot in this debate (Talking about the debate on Creation vs. Evolution in general) is that it will often degrade to "You're wrong!" "No! You're wrong!" With niether side offering any arguments for or against the previously offered arguments. Each participant in the debate eventually hides behind their own faiths, unwilling to give leeway to an opponent who made an unresputable point. What you all need to realize is that there are no absolute absolutes. Sometimes there is a shred of truth in the most terrible of lies. You each need to look for the possibility of truth in each others arguments and compromise your own beliefs. That's the basis for having an open mind.

Now, back to my own arguments:

Archeopteryx - Your website claims that its been a problem for Creationists. I don't see how. It's a completely independant species, just like an Emu or Vulture... or Duckbilled Platypus. It's that simple. The website also spreads a fair ammount of disinformation (Scuh as the above mentioned claim that Archeopteryx is a problem for creationists). It's also very good at constantly reminding the reader that "Creationists are uneducated ninnywits", a perfect example of the probaganda I explained in an earlier post. If you say something enough, people will believe it. And Creationists are just as guilty of this as anyone else.

There's lots of scientific evidence out... and many times you'll hear it said that such an experiment helps to prove this or that. The experiment yielded a result, yes; but speculation is being assigned to the result.

As for the genetic mutation point. YES, we are slowly being mutated. Absolutely correct. Smog, UV radiation, water contamination, smoking... that is why we are dealing with an ever-increasing number of illnesses - such as cancer and birth defects. It's not natural, and it's killing us. As I previously stated, species can only adapt so far (Since people and animals are meant to adapt to changing climates and conditions)... then they die. They don't continue to adapt (ie: evolve).

Jaguar, by your own support of the science, we are more closely related to rabbits than monkeys. That's why cosmetic labs use (Or at least USED to use, before Peta got involved) primarily rabbits for testing their new products, they got more accurate results. Off the top of my head (May not be dead on numbers, but close enough) humans have 46 chromosome layers, rabbits have 42, and chimpanzes have 38.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Further, I think about the odds of me winning the Power Ball then I think that evolution into intelligence would be akin to me winning the Power Ball 5 million times in a period of 2000 years.

You know I hear this argument all the time, and it is in all honesty a crock. Evolution is not a lottery so to speak. There are changes all the time, and there are thousands of changes that DON'T work and therefore die and are not repeated, Intelligence worked, and therefore was reproduced and continued reproducing, NOTHING LOTTERY like about it.

If the adaptation worked it thrived, if the adaptation did not work it died. It has taken millions of generations for these changes to have affected the changes that have made us human. MILLIONS!!! This is NOT LUCK, IT IS NECESSITY. Things will evolve and improve or that life form will die.

Again, the lifeform will improve and evolve, or the lifeform will die. It's easy, and since on an instinctual level all lifeforms wish to survive, changes are made to make that life form perform better in it's environment.

You can go ahead and call it luck I guess, but I call it Necessity. Survival of the fittest. Changes happen quickly when disaster strikes, and those changes that work, will again reproduce, and either the creature will be better or again it will die out.

The fossil record is there, creationists just choose to ignore it because it does not fit in with thier world view.

Well, Guys, the earth is round, we revolve around the sun, the sun is on the edge of a huge galaxy and we are in just one of billions of galaxies. This of course was fought tooth and nail by creationists as well, and now of course the church has grudgingly agreed that it is indeed true.

Guess what, sooner or later you will again have to come kicking and screaming into the modern world. There is no reason that if creationists quit taking the creation story so literally that evolution and creationism couldn't fit quite well together.

Again, there is NO reason that god couldn't have created the universe in just the way that scientists think it happened. Big Bang, dust and energy into stars, dust around the stars turn into planets, and the planets evolve life. No reason god couldn't have done it this way, no leap of faith necessary, Just because the book says 7 days does not make it a human 7 days.

I am NOT a christian, so it does not shake my faith to see evolution as scientific theory that has facts to back it up quite micely.

If evolution, a scientific theory is capable of shaking the faith of believers, then that faith wasn't as strong as it should have been in the first place.

Again, there is NO reason that evolution and creationism cannot fit together quite nicely, there is no reason that god couldn't have done it this way. But if you are going to take every biblical story literally, you will be pulled kicking and screaming into the modern world, instead of just flowing with it and realizing that science is not trying to destroy religion.

Religion though, does it's best to debunk science, and I think this a real diservice to the human race. But hey, I will continue to look at the facts of science and see without faith to cloud my judgement, that the facts really do speak for themselves as far as evolution is concerned.

No offense meant,and hopefully no offense taken, personally that is. I am an evolutionist only because I see the facts backing it up, and millions of years is a LONG time guys!! It really is!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

And what are the odds of the NECESSARY improvement occuring within the *generational* lifespan of any species? If that species could already reproduce effectively enough for survival, then speciation would be unnecessary.

Science's own Catch-22.


It is NOT a catch 22, all species adapt and change, the better changes get passed on to the next generation and are strengthened through the next and the next and the next.

It is NOT a catch 22, you are running on emotion and not the scientific theory behind it. If an adaptation helps with survival that adaptation is strengthened in the next generation and so on. No catch 22 at all.

MILLIONS of YEARS, hello, the life expectancy of that long ago was maybe 20 years, and the generations were basically right on top of each other, 12 years and you had progeny, maybe less, this gives a lot of generations to strengthen those adaptations that worked and to get rid of those that didn't.

I don't have a lot of time right now to go through this is in detail, painting my house and MUST get it done before the rain comes, but NO CATCH 22. It is scientifically explainable and mathematically probable, or there would NOT be a theory of evolution!!

I will let Paddy continue with the scientific stuff, I am NOT a scientist, but trust what my eyes have seen and what I have read.

There is no catch 22, and there is no mathematically improbable as far as the theory of evolution is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This lack of transitional thing is making me a little crazy, there is PLENTY of PROOF that there are transitionals.

Already posted this Link Once. It is a very good and concise explanation, as well as the rest of the webpage is excellent in this regard.

There are even arguments by creationists that are refuted by the explantions given.

There is NO lack of transitionals, the earth is BILLIONS of years old, not millions and life has been on this planet for at least 160 million years. The dinosaurs were wiped out approximatley 60 million years ago, and then Mammalian life was able to fill the niche that was left. Over the last 60 million years we have evolved to what we are today.

Eyes as far as that is concerned probably were eveloved at least 200 million years ago, because dinosaurs obviously had eyes of some sort, and they probably were a close approximation to our own. This gives at least that long for our eyes to have developed.

You will also notice that the eyes of an eagle are much better at distances then ours, why, because they fly high and thier eyes adapted to that lifestyle. You will also notice that most lizards and some birds have thier eye on the sides of thier heads, why, because depth perception was not as important as being able to see a almost a full 360 degrees to watch for predators.

You will also notice that most predators and apes have thier eyes on the front of thier heads in order to gain depth perception, why, because that adaptation worked and therefore those that got that adaptation survived.

Evolution is not debunked because of lack of transitionals, on the contrary there are thousands, and more being found all the time. Our science is getting much better at aging fossils, and so placing them in the proper timeline is getting easier.

You may like the fact that eyes would be so out of sink that it would be impossible for them to have come about through natural selection, but I say that it can, because it did. I believe that one of the first creatures in the sea that had eyes and was able to survive was one of the ones that walked out of the sea and became amphibious. ALL EYES except for insects are based on pretty much the same biology, therefore we all have some cousin way back in time that got that adaptation and passed it on to the rest of us. And each of the species has adapted those eyes to thier own special needs.

Evolution is FAR from debunked, as well as the BIG BANG being debunked is a falacy as well. There is proof being dug up all the time that fits right into both these theories, and more and more and more all the time.

I apologize for calling it emotion, and I did not mean to offend you, but facts is facts, and they are staring me right in the face. That is why I believe in evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, it's late, and I've just got back from Z├╝rich, having watched my hockey team lose 4-1 in quite a dreadful match. So my brain isn't working 100% right now but I just had a thought. If evolution is false, why bother with procreation? Let's face it the development of a complex multicellular organism in the space of 40 weeks from a single cell is a pretty awesome event and nigh on 'mathematically' impossible. Yet it happens, all over the planet, all of the time. The developmental process is a highly complex interaction of cells, growth factors chemokines, cytokines and the temporal switching off and on of genes as and when is necessary. To me, it is akin to evolution itself. If 'God', or whoever is out there, can place, or destroy, new species over the planet at will, why bother with development? Just create a new little, complete person when you want.

If my argument is flawed, then it is no more flawed than the theories of 'Creation Science'.

Another point, 'micro-evolution', 'macro-evolution', 'speciation' are basically terms for the same thing; change.

Like I said, it's late and I need my bed and I'm not going to surf the soft-underbelly of the web to find references to support my views, because quite honestly, very few people in this thread have done so either.

And *thanks* Jaguar for throwing me in at the Scientific deep end.

Over and out.

Z├╝rich 4, Fribourg Gott├®ron 1. Bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eclipse,

Facts are a pain when they don't agree with what you want them to say aren't they?

Sorry Eclipse, I think the site is put together pretty well, and the facts it puts forward are pretty irrefutable. The creationist arguments are there as well, makes it real hard to debate I suppose.

But you keep your opinion and I'll keep mine, I like science, even if it does strange and terrible things to my worldview, facts are just that way I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Even the MOST optimistic scientist agrees that the eye is a mathematical improbability. Now, to have THOUSANDS of species with eyes is a mathematical fallacy. And, in mathematical evolutionary models, scientists have NEVER been able to reproduce the eye. NOT ONCE!

Informative article.

I take it Aramike that a computer model does not count as a mathematical evolutionary model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag, those AREN'T FACTS!

I only had time to talk about two of them, but those that I posted on other EVOLUTIONISTS even agree are NOT transitional forms. So much for irrefutable.

If facts are proven facts I accept them, I do not accept specualtion and imaginative renderings as fact.

I like science as much as the next guy, but evolution isn't a science. I've not tried to disprove evolution above creationism, I've simply shown that there are not facts to back up evolution and that BOTH must be taken by FAITH. Since both require faith, neither is a science and neither should be taught as such. This brings us back to the original topic. Since both are faith based, conceivably NEITHER should be taught in schools. And it should be up to the parents to teach children the origins or our universe. After they have a foundation of which they believe to be truth they can take science courses from which ever perspective they believe to be correct.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Eclipse ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Eclipse:

quote:

No, you first show me ONE method that CONCLUSIVELY shows evolution existed. You tell me there are complete steps taken to prove it, yet show me nothing and then demand sources from me. It is not good to demand what you have not shown yourself.

Can we prove it CONCLUSIVELY? Probably NOT because it has not been PROVED Conclusively yet.

quote:

You mentioned the evidence for evolution that you encountered in college was

circumstantial. Welcome to the real world. Much (but by no means all) theoretical

scientific knowledge is based on circumstantial evidence.

Edit: Excerpt from a response to Jess Green posted on the No Answers in Genesis Website.

Well, I have showed you my source. Do you have one to offer? Or are you a scientist specializing in evolution theory? or biology. Are you a Scientist? I have read everybody's posts and the creationists replies so far have been, well that's been proven false. So, where are your Sites backing these statements? Or do you have Intimate knowledge of this subject? I for one need to rely on other peoples work because I am NOT a scientist of any type.

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Melcar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Can we prove it CONCLUSIVELY? Probably NOT because it has not been PROVED Conclusively yet.

Isn't this a little something called circular reasoning? Either way in saying this you have just said that it will be impossible to prove evolution. Since it is impossible to prove according to you, it must be accepted by FAITH not SCIENCE.

quote:


Well, I have showed you my source. Do you have one to offer? Or are you a scientist specializing in evolution theory? or biology. Are you a Scientist? I have read everybody's posts and the creationists replies so far have been, well that's been proven false. So, where are your Sites backing these statements? Or do you have Intimate knowledge of this subject? I for one need to rely on other peoples work because I am NOT a scientist of any type.

Reread the info I posted on refuting a couple of the points your site stated for evolution. I believe you will find my sources... or didn't you read everything I posted?

Aaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idea that I'd lie to throw into this discussion: We may not have the fossils of every species that has ever lived on this planet. Fossils are not automatically created when an animal dies. A very precise set of circumstances must be in place for a fossil to remain intact over the thousands (or millions) of years from their time of death to the time we dig them up.

Example: For a skeleton to survive, it must be buried in a somewhat rapid fashion for it to survive the process of decomposition. It must be completely buried underneath dirt for this to happen. The gradual shifting of earth from place to place by erosion does not do this quickly enough. A landslide must occur to preserve the bones. And here is where probability comes into play: How probable is it for a creature to get trapped underneath enough dirt for it to be preserved?

If the theory of evolution is to be believed (notice I said if) in the form of "The Most Fit Survive", then there shouldn't be any transitional animals. All that are the most fit to survive, do, and their remains decompose, leaving no fossils for us to find.

And now, I await the inevitability of my train of thought to be ripped to shreds mercilessly by those with a stronger conviction to their set of ideals than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbone,

I find that a very relevant and interesting perspective.

Eclipse,

There is nothing circular about it. Prove creationism, I have many facts and of course circumstantial evidence that points to the fact that evolution did, does and is occurring. Fossils, DNA, Amino Acids, experiments, all kinds of things that continue to show that evolution is the correct path, it changes a little bit with new discoveries, but the main basis of it is sound. All you can show me is a story in the bible, I can show many stories of creation, the indians have them, the hindus have them, Islam has then, buddhists have them, everyone has a creation story. WHO IS RIGHT?

Science so far has proven to me that the theory of evolution and the big bang are the most probable explanations. And facts continue to come to light to show that these theories are indeed very close to being correct.

Gallion,

You missed that part huh? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing to prove with creationism. I believe it by faith. I've said over and over that it can't be proved by science, just like evolution can't. Both must be accepted by faith.

The "evidence" you have presented has been refuted by evolutionists and creationists alike, so far none of your "facts" have held up. Your "source" is nothing more than a amalgamation of "I hate creationists" propaganda with very FEW actual instances of "evidence." What they did present is easy to refute, and not by just creationist information. There are NO transitional forms, without them we have Punctuated equilibrium, and to belive that you have to belive something that has no scientific basis or evidence to back up. You believe evolution by FAITH, I believe Creationism by FAITH. You believe in a Godless universe in which man is only a glorified animal. As such where is the sanctity of Human life? I believe in the special creation of man. He is not an animal, but created in the image of God. As such, human life is special. And yes, there are times that that life must be taken away, but it is not something to be cheapened or tossed away as we hunt animals.

Aaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

You believe in a Godless universe in which man is only a glorified animal. As such where is the sanctity of Human life? I believe in the special creation of man. He is not an animal, but created in the image of God. As such, human life is special. And yes, there are times that that life must be taken away, but it is not something to be cheapened or tossed away as we hunt animals.


Good grief, I am sorry, but to say that if you believe in evolution then therefore human life is nothing, that is just way above and beyond.

In any event it is quite the contrary, to have evolved to such a point, the luck and the time involved to become what we are, makes human life that much more special. You are the conglomeration of billions of years of natural selection. If that doesn't make human life special, I don't know what does.

As well as the fact of all the other lifeforms we share this planet with, I am sorry, but to say such a thing is just....BEYOND ridiculous!! I think ALL life is sacred, but human life most of all, because we are self aware, we are intelligent, but still, to say such a thing is just unbelievable!!

And there are FACTS to back up evolution, it is the fact that you choose to IGNORE them that makes it impossible to come to any agreement.

And ONCE AGAIN, I say, why couldn't god have done it this way. Why couldn't he have created the universe and then created the first living organisms, and then allowed those organisms to grow and evolve into us? WHY NOT? Because your good book says so?

Come on, let's look at the big picture here, the earth is NOT flat, the sun does NOT revolve around the earth, the earth is NOT the center of the universe, and we evolved on this planet from little tiny microbes in the primordial soup. How hard to understand is this? We are all made of star stuff as my favorite astronomer Carl Sagan used to say.

And to continue to ignore the FACTS that back up evolution will not make it go away, just as ignoring that the earth was round didn't make the fact that it was round go away.

Nothing like a good debate about politics or religion or evolution to get people riled up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you choose to IGNORE all of the points SHOWING that there is no proof.

I have not ignored facts, you simply HAVE NOT presented any that can withstand scrutany even by OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS. Yet you press onward to say that I am ignorant.

I find it very difficult to accept something that claims to be SCIENCE yet has never had ANY proof and has been repeatedly plagued by hoaxes and misinformation to try to gain some basis. I don't just believe in creationism because my Bible say that happened, I look around at all the LUDICROUS statements and facts evolutionists put forward. How do you explain where all the matter for the universe came from? They can't. How about creating life from non life? They tried that and science failed. What about transitional forms? We don't have anything there either. Punctuated Equilibrium? One day a chicken laid and egg and a monkey popped out. No proof here either. Any evidence of helpful mutation? Nope sorry, look at the fruit fly experiment.

What about the geologic column? No dice here either. We have yet to fin all the layers in the proper order. How can you explain the evolution of the bombadier beetle? You can't. The beetle would have died out before it developed all the special organs it needs to survive using it's OWN weapon. What about the Celocanth? We classified that as a transitional form millions of years old. Guess what? They caught a LIVE one in the early 1900's. Guess what? It hadn't changed from the supposedly ancient fossils.

Time and time again, transitional forms have been "found" only to be reclassified when more of the remains appear or tossed aside as hoaxes. One of the steps of the scientific method is OBSERVE, no one has observed evolution happening, nor observed proof of it. If you don't follow the scientific method how say what you are trying to prove is SCIENCE? You can't, it must then be taken by faith.

Aaron

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Eclipse ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...