Support NeoGAF

[Mario]

I am fine with evolution but evolution does not in any way prove species jumps so the flaw is assuming what you said is fact.

We have witnessed speciation directly, as well as having vast amounts of evidence in support of it in the form of DNA, fossils, and transitional forms etc.

To educate yourself further on the subject, I'd suggest reading this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


On the specific subject of the evolution of whales from land mammals, here is a picture and link from the evolution thread you were trolling

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

 

[Kinitari]

Not true.

I am fine with evolution but evolution does not in any way prove species jumps so the flaw is assuming what you said is fact.

Woah now, turning this into a speciation thing? To make the statement you made, you'd have to ignore the plethora of raw undeniable evidence pointing that Speciation has and continues to occur - further, you'd have to (with absolutely no evidence other than observational simplification) make the statement that it's impossible for one species to 'move out' of it's species bracket.

You're statement also ignores the plethora of fossil evidence, highlighting the fact that marine life came about waaaaay before anything else. WAAAAAY before.

 

[JGS]

No it's retroactive adaption. And a bad one at that. There is a very precise order in which God was supposed to have created these things as presented in Genesis.

I'll explicitly point these out so you can see how the order is specified.

There is a precise order



This explicitly states that every plant was created on the earth before rain ever poured. Just stupid and factually incorrect nonsense.
Chapter 2 explain how the plants were watered.

This explicitly states that God created animals specifically because man should be alone after he created Adam. Man did not come into existence before every other animal so again this is bullshit.

And after Adam has a fun time giving names to all of the animals, God decides Adam needs a special partner, so he creates Eve.

First, it's chapter 2

Second, this statement makes no sense. As is your MO, you seperate the verse away from all other verse when a few verse down disproves your interpretation (I think since I don't quite understand it)

Chapter 2 discusses life in Eden not the whole of the Earth as in Chpater 1.

Interpret the meaning of words all you want but Genesis is very explicit in a certain number of details. Your attempt of retroactive adaption falls flat when put against the order given in the account. There's no argument here. Go read it for for yourself. I checked out about half a dozen of the most popular versions of the Old Testament and everyone of them retains this explicit order.

You haven't read again. I think it's a pretty fair interpretation, but if you disagree so be it. What are you going to do to me?:lol

If you have more whacky verses picks to quote out of context, I'll be more than happy to explain their worthless interppetations away again.

That's really the crazy thing after you massacre of the verse a few pages back, to think you have the nerve to be telling others they got scripture wrong is insane x 100.

Additionally, none of the versions prefer to adapt your alternative meaning for the term "create/adapted". So it's fair to say that the retroactive adaption argument falls flat on two specific accounts.

Why would they. A Bible version should only translate. Also, those versions and translate all explain God don't they? So trust me, they do explain it, it's just that it takes more understanding than picking out verses in Genesis itself. I had a Bible as fiction class in college and even the atheist professor that taught it knew the differences between chapter 1 and 2.

JGS implying that Genesis and science can co-exist is just laughable. If anyone wishes to attempt to explain the scientific validity of the Genesis account of the creation of everything, feel free.

I've seen this pop up somewhere else. However, why would I need to validate that? I'm fine with my beliefs ion the matter. Wouldn't it make more sense to throw some scientific fact my way to complete humiliate me on the topic. Cuz right now, all you're doing is throwing scripure my way which is not helping your cause!:lol

I'll ask that JGS explain and clarify his statements about Genesis and science. Considering the above examples, it is clear that Genesis is a work of fiction, delusion or fantasy, not scientific fact. I'd be happy to explain anything above in greater clarity if need be.

Your examples don't prove anything. In fact they were more meandering than usual. Further, I'm not interested in converting you at all, so it matter little to me whether you think I'm a crackpot or not. But if you want to educate me, be my guest.

I'm up for a little deconversion.

 

[JGS]

Woah now, turning this into a speciation thing? To make the statement you made, you'd have to ignore the plethora of raw undeniable evidence pointing that Speciation has and continues to occur - further, you'd have to (with absolutely no evidence other than observational simplification) make the statement that it's impossible for one species to 'move out' of it's species bracket.

You're statement also ignores the plethora of fossil evidence, highlighting the fact that marine life came about waaaaay before anything else. WAAAAAY before.

I didn't turn it into anything.

My statement didn't say anything about which came first. It was about one species becoming another and I would welcome the large amounts of raw data supporting this.

 

[JGS]

We have witnessed speciation directly, as well as having vast amounts of evidence in support of it in the form of DNA, fossils, and transitional forms etc.

To educate yourself further on the subject, I'd suggest reading this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


On the specific subject of the evolution of whales from land mammals, here is a picture and link from the evolution thread you were trolling

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

I wasn't trolling. I had nothing but respect for evolutionists in that thread and I voluntarily left when they made it clear that religion should be insulted free of any talk from a religious person. I believe they said I was no better than a creationist.

You may have been one of them I guess.

Talk Origins again. Whoopee.

That chart holds no value as it is simply a belief on how things evolved. It is no more "accurate" than Genesis. To think that the bulk of species becomeing other species lies in the bone record is silly anyway.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

read the last page of this thread.... without being involved in the argument JGS is almost impossible to follow.

only bit that stood out was this

You can view it as factual. In fact you can view it as literal.

that's just nuts.

 

[Mario]

It was about one species becoming another and I would welcome the large amounts of raw data supporting this.

The link I provided above contains references to dozens of scientific papers on the subject that will contain "large amounts of raw data".

If your above sentiment is genuine, you have a place to start.

I wasn't trolling.

You pretty much said you enjoyed winding people up.

Talk Origins again. Whoopee.

That chart holds no value as it is simply a belief on how things evolved. It is no more "accurate" than Genesis. To think that the bulk of species becomeing other species lies in the bone record is silly anyway.

Well, this tells me you aren't genuine in your sentiment. You asked for evidence and proof, and you were provided links and references to actual scientific papers.

Have you read the linked page and the scientific papers referenced therein?

As I say above, if you actually want to learn then get reading. Until then suggesting science doesn't have the vidence on the subject just makes you look foolish.

 

[Nocebo]

That chart holds no value as it is simply a belief on how things evolved. It is no more "accurate" than Genesis. To think that the bulk of species becomeing other species lies in the bone record is silly anyway.

It's not just the bone record but several other records as well. Gene study supports this as well as Botany amongst others.

 

[JGS]

As far as I know there was no water before there was land. Neither could it be there at the same time as earth (as in dirt) was formed. In genesis the planet was created as being covered in water, then later the water moved to one place. That, however, is very unlikely. Furthermore there would be "sky" before there was water wouldn't there?

I'm sorry but it is a fact. Nothing in biology makes sense without it. Aside from that several other scientific branches of study confirm this fact independently.

Basically what you meant to say a page or so back was that genesis doesn't conflict with science as long as you ignore most of what science has discovered in the last 150 years. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but how does it not boil down to that? In science speciation through evolution is a fact.

You're argument is thus: Because biology doesn't make sense without it, it must be true. Is that correct?

I agree. Nothing in biology makes sense without creation being a factor- Bible or not. Actually that's not true, most people can enjoy biology just fine without knowing the origin of it especially if knowing the origin only means knowing what was made up about it.

Science hangs onto it as "fact" because they have nothing else to go on. That doesn't mean it's more possible just because a factor was left out of it.

 

[JGS]

It's not just the bone record but several other records as well. Gene study supports this as well as Botany amongst others.

No it doesn't.

Spoiler

Yes, I'm egging all of you on.

 

[Mario]

Science hangs onto it as "fact" because they have nothing else to go on. That doesn't mean it's more possible just because a factor was left out of it.

No. Science "hangs onto" evolution as fact because it has been observed and independently verified.

The theory of evolution is a well researched, well supported explanation of this behaviour.

When science doesn't know something, it is happy to have no answer, though it may pose hypotheses as possible explanations.

 

[Nocebo]

You're argument is thus: Because biology doesn't make sense without it, it must be true. Is that correct?

No. It is merely a statement that implies that evolution explains things that could otherwise not be explained. Evolution is not true because biology makes no sense without it. Evolution is true because it has been verified to be true by many different independent disciplines.

It's like saying nothing about the motion of planets makes sense without the the theory of gravitation. Understand?

I agree. Nothing in biology makes sense without creation being a factor- Bible or not. Actually that's not true, most people can enjoy biology just fine without knowing the origin of it especially if knowing the origin only means knowing what was made up about it.

Evolution is not about creation, so why are you talking about origin all of a sudden? It's not about enjoying biology. Whatever that means. I'm talking about biology as a study.

Science hangs onto it as "fact" because they have nothing else to go on. That doesn't mean it's more possible just because a factor was left out of it.

You don't seem to understand what I'm referring to. Science had plenty else to go on but everything has been proven false. Evolution has yet to be proven false in over 150 years. Evolution happens, period: Diversification in species is due to decent with modification and common ancestry.

 

[JGS]

No. It is merely a statement that implies that evolution explains things that could otherwise not be explained. Evolution is not true because biology makes no sense without it. Evolution is true because it has been verified to be true by many different independent disciplines.

Creation (Bible or not) does that too.

It's like saying nothing about the motion of planets makes sense without the the theory of gravitation. Understand?

Being told I'm not a science guy, so I may be wrong, but gravity isn't a theory. How it works may be I guess, but gravity is abundantly clear.

Evolution is not about creation, so why are you talking about origin all of a sudden? It's not about enjoying biology. Whatever that means. I'm talking about biology as a study.

I agree with this. You were the one that brought this up weren't you?

You don't seem to understand what I'm referring to. Science had plenty else to go on but everything has been proven false. Evolution has yet to be proven false in over 150 years. Evolution happens, period: Diversification in species is due to decent with modification and common ancestry.

This is incorrect. Creation has not been proven false. Further, creation has a hand in some evolutionary processes because, per science, one species doesn't beget another. So the two are inevitably going to be linked to an extent.

Creation has been dismissed. There is a big difference between the two.

Further, any other possibiliy outside of creation has not been proven.

 

[Mario]

Being told I'm not a science guy, so I may be wrong, but gravity isn't a theory. How it works may be I guess, but gravity is abundantly clear.

The phenomenon of gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity is the explanation of how it works. The phenomenon of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how it works.

As far as scientific theories go, the theory of evolution is a much more understood and well supported explanation than the theory of gravity.

This is incorrect. Creation has not been proven false. Further, creation has a hand in some evolutionary processes because, per science, one species doesn't beget another. So the two are inevitably going to be linked to an extent.

Creation has been dismissed. There is a big difference between the two.

Creationism has never been framed as a scientific theory. It is not observable, testable, has no evidence and makes no predictions.

Creation not being proven false gives it no more validity than saying the existance of unicorns has never been disproven.

Evolution and creation are nowhere near equivalent scientifically.

Further, any other possibiliy outside of creation has not been proven.

Seriously, start reading, because you are ignoring the evidence that has been out in front of you multiple times.

 

[Kinitari]

Creation (Bible or not) does that too.


Being told I'm not a science guy, so I may be wrong, but gravity isn't a theory. How it works may be I guess, but gravity is abundantly clear.

You're misunderstanding what theory means. Think of Gravity in two parts

Statement - Gravity is a real thing.
Theory - How does gravity work?

Replace gravity with Evolution - and it's the same thing, heck we know more about Evolution (including speciation) than gravity.

This is incorrect. Creation has not been proven false. Further, creation has a hand in some evolutionary processes because, per science, one species doesn't beget another. So the two are inevitably going to be linked to an extent.

Creation has been dismissed. There is a big difference between the two.

Further, any other possibiliy outside of creation has not been proven.

You are correct, it has been dismissed. Mostly because it's utter bunk - random stories (No matter how many people believe in the divine roots) cannot be used in any kind of Science - juxtaposing Creation with any other Scientific theory is - to be honest - kind of insulting.

As for your last statement, I theorize that the world came to be when a geyser of light appeared from the future, trillions and trillions of years into the future, bleeding into the past and imploded into one tiny point, in which flying deities of a billion different shapes and sizes flew out of, and immediately perished - then a giant plant named Yggdrasil spread it's roots and all of life was borne from it's fruits - then immediately died. Then Abiogenesis occured on our planet. This may seem like a continuous loop with no 'starting point' - but using your standards, it has just about the same credibility as the Creation story.

The phenomenon of gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity is the explanation of how it works. The phenomenon of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how it works.

As far as scientific theories go, the theory of evolution is a much more understood and well supported explanation than the theory of gravity.

I hate you mario.

 

[Nocebo]

Being told I'm not a science guy, so I may be wrong, but gravity isn't a theory. How it works may be I guess, but gravity is abundantly clear.

You're definitely wrong. And therein lies the problem. If you can't grasp those distinctions. If you drop a pen it will surely fall. But why? Fucking magnets how do they work? That's the theory of gravitation.

Another example: Germ theory isn't true because we get sick. We get sick and germ theory explains it. There is no theory that explains it better.

As with us getting sick and pens dropping to the floor so is the diversification through decent true.

I agree with this. You were the one that brought this up weren't you?

No. Are you referring to what I said about how all sea life coming before land life is in conflict with evolution?

This is incorrect. Creation has not been proven false.

Creation does not have to do with evolution. Evolution takes place after creation.

Further, creation has a hand in some evolutionary processes because, per science, one species doesn't beget another.

This is completely false. How did you come by this erroneous conclusion?

 

[Nocebo]

Creationism has never been framed as a scientific theory. It is not observable, testable, has no evidence and makes no predictions.

I think he's talking about how life began. He is right in that life had to begin at some point. However it is totally irrelevant to evolution.

Speaking of biblical origins of life. It doesn't explain where bacteria and viruses and such came from. They don't seem to be created by God. Creation of flying insects seems to be ommitted in the bible as well?

 

[JGS]

The phenomenon of gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity is the explanation of how it works. The phenomenon of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how it works.

Again, there is no problem with evolution. It just can't explain everything regarding life anymore than gravity can explain all forces.

Creationism has never been framed as a scientific theory. It is not observable, testable, has no evidence and makes no predictions.

interspecies evolution hasn't either.

Creation not being proven false gives it no more validity than saying the existance of unicorns has never been disproven.

Interspecies evolution and/or abiogenesis not being proven false gives it no more validity than saying the existance of unicorns has never been disproven.

See how easy that is?

I'm not the one arguing these points. You are. If you are bringing up the arguments, then bring the info to me. You are obviously trying to convince me of something, but you're just using rhetoric to prove your point rather than facts. How scientific can that be?

 

[Mario]

I think he's talking about how life began.

I believe so.

He is right in that life had to begin at some point. However it is totally irrelevant to evolution.

Well, from a Christian religious standpoint Creation bleeds into evolution because it "jumps in" to a point where humans (and other lifeforms) are magiced into existance.

In any case, whether or not they describe the same thing is missing the point that JGS appears to be trying to suggest they are equivalent with respect to their scientific validity and "proof".

 

[JGS]

You're misunderstanding what theory means. Think of Gravity in two parts

Statement - Gravity is a real thing.
Theory - How does gravity work?

Replace gravity with Evolution - and it's the same thing, heck we know more about Evolution (including speciation) than gravity.

I didn't misunderstand that.

How it works may be I guess

The rest of your statement is just rhetoric again (Blah, blah, blah) so no need to respond.

 

[Nocebo]

Interspecies evolution and/or abiogenesis not being proven false gives it no more validity than saying the existance of unicorns has never been disproven.

See how easy that is?

I'm not the one arguing these points. You are. If you are bringing up the arguments, then bring the info to me. You are obviously trying to convince me of something, but you're just using rhetoric to prove your point rather than facts. How scientific can that be?

The difference is interspecies evolution wasn't accepted true until it was proven to be true. It's not true because there is no other better explanation, you're looking at it wrong.

You can prove a positive as you're supposed to. A vague claim is hard to disprove, however evolution is not a vague claim and can be verified. If there was anything that could disprove evolution (and there are many things that could if the theory of evolution was wrong) then it's genetics. However genetics only continues to confirm evolution.

Anyway the default position to a positive claim is that it's not true unless proven true. It is not true because it has yet to be disproved.

 

[Mario]

Again, there is no problem with evolution. It just can't explain everything regarding life anymore than gravity can explain all forces.

The theory of evolution makes no claim to explain "everything regarding life", and I made no such claim with respect to it either. The theory of evolution (at a high level) only explains the diversity and complexity of life.

interspecies evolution hasn't either.

Yes it has. We have seen it. I gave you the examples and the links to the scientific papers and raw data you claimed you wanted to see. You appear to have ignored them.

Interspecies evolution and/or abiogenesis not being proven false gives it no more validity than saying the existance of unicorns has never been disproven.

See how easy that is?

What does that even mean apart from demonstrating your knowledge of the scientific method is poor?

I'm not the one arguing these points. You are. If you are bringing up the arguments, then bring the info to me. You are obviously trying to convince me of something, but you're just using rhetoric to prove your point rather than facts. How scientific can that be?

Er, you made erroneous claims with respect to science, then when called out on those you then claimed to be interested in being educated as well as calling for raw data. I gave you links to help you learn.

As far as I can tell, any such suggestion you have made with respect to education has been disingenuous.

You are not making any attempt to learn and keep making incorrect claims with respect to what science has and has not proven.

Time for me to get some sleep. Enjoy your continued ignorance.

 

[JGS]

I believe so.




Well, from a Christian religious standpoint Creation bleeds into evolution because it "jumps in" to a point where humans (and other lifeforms) are magiced into existance.

In any case, whether or not they describe the same thing is missing the point that JGS appears to be trying to suggest they are equivalent with respect to their scientific validity and "proof".

From a science standpoint, they would need to "bleed" together wouldn't they? In other words, if evolution in all it's glory were proven, how would science explain how the evolutionary process started? but that's beside the point.

I'm well aware of the difference and primary difference is on the basis of what is proven.
The scientific explanation of how life started is far shakier than evolution to the point that there's no way whatsoever to verify it. How could you since it's completely and totally impossible?

This does not mean that some evolution being true = ALL evolution being true. Evolution has been proven to an extent, but it also has not been proven in any sense of the word to include crossing the reproductive laws that are governed by science itself.

So to be clear, there are two completely seperate concepts I'm discussing that are impossible.

If you would learn to read about this neat thing us bronze age types refer to as "distinctions", then the argument would be much more progressive.

 

[Nocebo]

From a science standpoint, they would need to "bleed" together wouldn't they? In other words, if evolution in all it's glory were proven, how would science explain how the evolutionary process started? but that's beside the point.

I'm well aware of the difference and primary difference is on the basis of what is proven.
The scientific explanation of how life started is far shakier than evolution to the point that there's no way whatsoever to verify it. How could you since it's completely and totally impossible?

This does not mean that some evolution being true = ALL evolution being true. Evolution has been proven to an extent, but it also has not been proven in any sense of the word to include crossing the reproductive laws that are governed by science itself.

What reproductive laws? Yes, speciation is true. Science doesn't need to prove how it started for evolution to be true. For the same reason gravitation is true even though it doesn't explain how the planets came to be.
You always try to change the subject to abiogenisis. You need to get over this hangup. Just for emphasis: I hope noone falls for the abiogenisis strawman.

 

[Kinitari]

I didn't misunderstand that.

Fair enough, you are just dismissing certain parts of Evolution theory that doesn't gel with your worldview.

The rest of your statement is just rhetoric again (Blah, blah, blah) so no need to respond.

Be that as it may, I am only trying to highlight the baseless idea you are comparing to substantiated theory. Just because it's not 100% proven doesn't mean you can compare it with something that is 0% proven.

 

[JGS]

The theory of evolution makes no claim to explain "everything regarding life", and I made no such claim with respect to it either. The theory of evolution (at a high level) only explains the diversity and complexity of life.[/quote
Great. We agree!

Yes it has. We have seen it. I gave you the examples and the links to the scientific papers and raw data you claimed you wanted to see. You appear to have ignored them.

I saw no urls... Wait, you're not talking about Talk Origins or that nice drawing of animals are you? Surely not! :lol

I read it.

What does that even mean apart from demonstrating your knowledge of the scientific method is poor?

Now I understand that you thought you gave me the vital info which you didn't, but now I know you thought you did.

Er, you made erroneous claims with respect to science, then when called out on those you then claimed to be interested in being educated as well as calling for raw data. I gave you links to help you learn.

As far as I can tell, any such suggestion you have made with respect to education has been disingenuous.

What erroneous claim did I make regarding science that would require me to prove something to you?

You are not making any attempt to learn and keep making incorrect claims with respect to what science has and has not proven.

This isn't true. I'm now taking a subject I didn't want to talk about to begin with and asking for enlightenment that is obvious to all (well 10-15% of the earth's population, but they're the smart ones!) and it simply is boiled down to me being hard headed. OK.

Gaffer: Do you believe the Genesis account is real?
Me: Sure
Gaffer: OMGLOLWTFBBQ!!! You believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour days
Me: The Bible doesn't say that
Gaffer: LOL!! I know more than you and yes it does!
Me: Well, actually, the Scriptures indicate that God...
Gaf: Yadda, yadda, yadda, you have no proof. It's obvious complete opposite of science.
ME: How?
Gaffer: You don't deserve to know because you're stupid! EDIT: OK, I'll throw you a bone- look at this picture. See proof!
Me: OK

 

[JGS]

Fair enough, you are just dismissing certain parts of Evolution theory that doesn't gel with your worldview.

I'm dismissing parts of the evolutionary that aren't true and impossible. If it's proven, it would obviously fit my worldview.

Be that as it may, I am only trying to highlight the baseless idea you are comparing to substantiated theory. Just because it's not 100% proven doesn't mean you can compare it with something that is 0% proven.

Aspects of evolutionary theory that I don't agree with are 0% proven. They hold no more weight than the paper the idea is written on.

 

[Kinitari]

JGS, your language seems to imply that you don't understand how Speciation happens, let's try to break this down so we can focus on the part you feel is completely impossible.

Species evolve and change over time - agree or disagree?

Species have been placed (and continue to be placed) into categories that have been created by man itself, not a universal body (thus it's an observative category, not a predefined category). Agree or disagree?

Birds came from reptiles (or maybe even vice versa?) - agree or disagree?

There is absolutely no scientific law or rule that says that a species cannot overtime have enough changes that place it outside of it's previously defined species category - agree or disagree?

 

[Nocebo]

...

Getting back to the main point. You claimed genesis doesn't conflict with science. HOWEVER science accepts speciation as a FACT of evolution. You do not get to decide what science does and doesn't find factual. The facts of evolution conflict with the order in which the animals appear on the earth. A large part of the animal kingdom seems to be omitted even.

Was everything created at once? Geological and Meteorological evidence says no.

 

[JGS]

Getting back to the main point. You claimed genesis doesn't conflict with science. HOWEVER science accepts speciation as a FACT of evolution. You do not get to decide what science does and doesn't find factual. The facts of evolution conflict with the order in which the animals appear on the earth. A large part of the animal kingdom seems to be omitted even.

Science cannot accept something unproven as FACT. That's a scientific fact.

If you're saying they can do that, then that's where the disagreement arises and you are correct- Genesis does not jibe with science.

However, I never would have thought that this cold, hard, analytical field could simply say something is true and thus it is fact. That's pretty Genesis like of them!:lol

 

[JGS]

JGS, your language seems to imply that you don't understand how Speciation happens, let's try to break this down so we can focus on the part you feel is completely impossible.

Species evolve and change over time - agree or disagree?

Species have been placed (and continue to be placed) into categories that have been created by man itself, not a universal body (thus it's an observative category, not a predefined category). Agree or disagree?

Birds came from reptiles (or maybe even vice versa?) - agree or disagree?

There is absolutely no scientific law or rule that says that a species cannot overtime have enough changes that place it outside of it's previously defined species category - agree or disagree?

I understand the process (Well at least as much as a person who hates science can which I apparently do because "scientists" told me so!). I'm not going to answer line by line because my statements are pretty straighforward already. There is nothing confusing or ambiguous about what I said unless you don't speak English.

I will say that there is no scientific law or rule that says something can't be created. In fact, there are laws out the ying yang saying quite the opposite. This is why something being dismissed is not a valid argument for saying it's not true.

 

[Nocebo]

Science cannot accept something unproven as FACT. That's a scientific fact.

It is proven and that's why it has been accepted by science. Read carefully: It was always true. Then later it had been accepted because it was proven to be true.

 

[Kinitari]

I understand the process (Well at least as much as a person who hates science can which I apparently do because "scientists" told me so!). I'm not going to answer line by line because my statements are pretty straighforward already. There is nothing confusing or ambiguous about what I said unless you don't speak English.

I will say that there is no scientific law or rule that says something can't be created. In fact, there are laws out the ying yang saying quite the opposite. This is why something being dismissed is not a valid argument for saying it's not true.

*sigh* Okay, I'll make some concessions and hopefully you'll follow suit.

There is no Scientific law that says something cannot be created by a Deity - completely agree. Do you agree or disagree when I say there is no scientific law preventing one species to evolve outside of it's previously categorized species?

 

[Futureman]

Wait...

This has probably already come up, but...

what are religious people's explanation for God being SO involved with humans back in the day, but now he/she/it/whatever has absolutely no interaction with us?

edit: and don't say "Oh! I pray to God everyday and he responds to me! What do you mean he doesn't interact with humans anymore?!?"

I'm talking about parting the Red Sea and shit.

 

[Blergmeister]

Fun tangent!

Again, there is no problem with evolution. It just can't explain everything regarding life anymore than gravity can explain all forces.

One of the reasons I think Science is cool is because it is becoming obvious that everything is connected together. All the way up to all the way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

Once we have this figured out, all forces can be explained in terms of gravity!

 

[Nocebo]

Science cannot accept something unproven as FACT. That's a scientific fact.

If you're saying they can do that, then that's where the disagreement arises and you are correct- Genesis does not jibe with science.

However, I never would have thought that this cold, hard, analytical field could simply say something is true and thus it is fact. That's pretty Genesis like of them!:lol

Well I'm glad you finally admitted you were wrong. But why did you need to drag it out like that, since you already knew you were wrong. That's all I was saying. That you were wrong about genisis not conflicting with science. It's not just evolution though, also astronomy and geology.

 

[Pandaman]

I never said anything about it being consecutive order.

thats because you're incapable of thinking through your decisions. a consecutive order is a consequence of the idea that birds are out of order.
Because you acknowledged the existence of the issue, days must be consecutive by consequence.
You then claimed that it was possible that days overlapped. But if days overlapped, it could very well be that birds showed up at the tail end of the first overlapping 'day' and animals at the beginning of the second, which would remove the issue.

There's either an issue: bird period ended before animal period began.
or there isn't: overlap between the days solves the issue caused by... the days system.

When you wanted genesis to appear scientifically rigorous, you acknowledged an issue, but a small one. but when you were called on that [and by extension the other much more troubling out of order events that you keep trying to forget] you then suggested the overlap of days, but that throws out any claim you had on genesis being scientific as you're essentially saying the genesis order is whatever it needs to be to be right and that's as far removed from science as things get.

as it so happens its fairly easy to throw out the idea of overlap, But just because i think I'd be hilarious: JGS, can you explain the difference between using a term for an indeterminate length of time['day'] differs from using a pair of start['morning'] and stop terms['evening'] for the same length of time or just provide some example situations in which each one would be preferable to the alternative and explain why that is so.

I never made any factual statement regarding how the days were alligned as the Scriptures don't say. What I did say is that nothing contradicted how science plays it out.

other than the earth being older than the sun.
oh wait, no that was atmosphere clearing. riiiight. :lol

you've run the events of that day all the way back to the first and then planted your own personal narrative of events for that era that have no basis in anything written, and that's how you've come to say how 'nothing contradicted science'. lemme think, genesis has: earth before sun, earth before stars, liquid water before landmasses, plants before sun, flowers, grasses and most fruit bearing plants before land animals, birds before land animals and all aquatic species before land animals.

In other words, we weren't burped out of a giant tortoise or something. It simply explains that God created us rather than nothing.

Perfect, another chance for you to be adorable:
Can you explain the difference between those possibilities?
hell, the tortoise could have just burped with a large bang of energy and boom, science takes over at T=1.0^-43s

This statement is idiotic.

logic is one of those things where you cant reason someone into accepting it. So i wont bother.

This is the irony. You put a lot of weight into disproving it on the basis of science and then show yourself not to be too much of a lover of science either!:lol

dohoho.

What words would you think they would use to describe days?

i am sticking to the interpretation that a morning describes a beginning and evening an end and use the word day to describe the interval of time contained therein. for my purposes, the actual length of time contained in this period does not matter.

So I'm not good enough. How very elitist of you.

hey, im not good enough to be a car mechanic.
But yes, you aren't good enough.
not even close.
like wow.
to use a basketball analogy:
no rim, no backboard and if the stadium roof is open, you probably have to replace someones windshield.

 

[Kinitari]

I really don't want to scare JGS away from this conversation, as this entire Speciation thing is pretty important to me, and I think can have a huge impact on this religious debate - so I am going to ask a few more questions in hopes that he answers.

If someone were to tell you that Hippos and Whales were close relatives, would this make sense to you?

You've seen that illustration of that mammal to whale a million times by now, and you say that it's just an illustration (even though it's not, all those intermediate species are based on fossil evidence, but watever) - how about considering the manatee as a good 'intbetween' species. This isn't quite how it works, but I think it's important for me to highlight this point. I'm not going to talk about DNA or fossil evidence, simply common sense and observation.

The manatee can hold it's breath for 20minutes easily - would say that it would have been possible for this trait to be evolved? Maybe a while back it was 10minutes? 5?

If I were to say that the manatee was a land based animal not too long ago, would this seem far fetched?

How about if the manatee were to evolve a better ability to hold it's breath? Maybe 30, 40 minutes?

 

[jdogmoney]

Spoiler

'But you're using that same tactic to try to feel superior to me, too!' 'Sorry, that accusation expires after one use per conversation.'

Relevant?

 

[JGS]

Well I'm glad you finally admitted you were wrong. But why did you need to drag it out like that, since you already knew you were wrong. That's all I was saying. That you were wrong about genisis not conflicting with science. It's not just evolution though, also astronomy and geology.

I admitted no such thing and you're stretching things. I said you were wrong to think that just because science states it, does not make it so.

Further I don't even hear science doing that - only you.

Now if science actually becomes so arrogant to claim that what is hypotheisized = truth, then it is in disagreement with Genesis. that has not happened except in your imagination.

 

[JGS]

Wow, that was a short nap!

Whacky stuff

Why are you persisting in creating an argument that is not there?

 

[JGS]

Spoiler

'But you're using that same tactic to try to feel superior to me, too!' 'Sorry, that accusation expires after one use per conversation.'

Relevant?

I don't get it if you're discussing me.

If you're discussing someone else, I apologize.

 

[Kinitari]

Also before I forget, just so we're on the same page - what would you describe as 'speciation' as to different people, it can mean different things (mammal to fish (ugh), mammal to another type of mammal it can no longer reproduce with, substantial changes in phenotype etc).

 

[JGS]

I really don't want to scare JGS away from this conversation, as this entire Speciation thing is pretty important to me, and I think can have a huge impact on this religious debate - so I am going to ask a few more questions in hopes that he answers.

Nothing said so far has been scary. If I leave the conversation, it will only be because:
1. You've stopped talking to me about it (One can dream)
2. The insult quotient exceeds the discussion quotient.
3. I am banned

If someone were to tell you that Hippos and Whales were close relatives, would this make sense to you?

You've seen that illustration of that mammal to whale a million times by now, and you say that it's just an illustration (even though it's not, all those intermediate species are based on fossil evidence, but watever) - how about considering the manatee as a good 'intbetween' species. This isn't quite how it works, but I think it's important for me to highlight this point. I'm not going to talk about DNA or fossil evidence, simply common sense and observation.

No one is contradicting the fossil record. Where have I ever contradicted anything about the fossil record. You are doing to me what you are doing to the fossil record- you are filling in the gaps that are not explained. This isn't an issue of transitional fossil record as each of those fossils are simply a species.

The issue is what you do with the gaps. I say there's no reason for them to be explained. You say they must be explained because the other option is ludicrous- something I disagree with.

The manatee can hold it's breath for 20minutes easily - would say that it would have been possible for this trait to be evolved? Maybe a while back it was 10minutes? 5?

If I were to say that the manatee was a land based animal not too long ago, would this seem far fetched?

How about if the manatee were to evolve a better ability to hold it's breath? Maybe 30, 40 minutes?

If the record show that a manatee was a land based animal, then so be it. Why exclude creation forces from that idea? You make it sound as if it's an either...or scenario when there's no particular reason it has to be except to set up a grudge match.

Before Panda comes in and accuses me of lying again let me preface this with a complete disclosure that this is entirely a hypotheitcally invented scenario completely imagined by me and my science hating brain & no way tied to scripture (patent pending):

What would be the problem with "God" seeing the manatee as a land based mammal and helping it along to being a sea based one? What would be wrong with God simply not saving the land based version and allowng the sea based one to exist? What would be wrong with God during the creation period(s) simply tweaking his designs and letting nature take it's course?

 

[Dude Abides]

No one is contradicting the fossil record. Where have I ever contradicted anything about the fossil record. You are doing to me what you are doing to the fossil record- you are filling in the gaps that are not explained. This isn't an issue of transitional fossil record as each of those fossils are simply a species.

The issue is what you do with the gaps. I say there's no reason for them to be explained. You say they must be explained because the other option is ludicrous- something I disagree with.

 

[jdogmoney]

I don't get it if you're discussing me.

If you're discussing someone else, I apologize.

Hmmm?

Nah, it's more of a general thing.

Oh, I haven't been paying attention the past couple of pages. I don't enjoy talking about the perceived accuracy of Genesis. You have to interpret it pretty loosely for it to be considered accurate in any meaningful sense, and by that point interpretations are all personal, so there's no point in discussing it.

Dude Abides: :lol

 

[Kinitari]

http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq141/Dude_Abides/creationist_graphs.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

I was going to pose the same question but in a different way.

Which 'gaps' in particular do you have problems with JGS?

[QUOTE]What would be the problem with "God" seeing the manatee as a land based mammal and helping it along to being a sea based one? What would be wrong with God simply not saving the land based version and allowng the sea based one to exist? What would be wrong with God during the creation period(s) simply tweaking his designs and letting nature take it's course?[/QUOTE]

I guess if God did this by putting in mechanics we see every day in nature (natural selection, mutation etc) - then no problem, it's just convoluted and adds unnecessary complexity to a simple solution. The only reason we'd add God into the equation is because we want him to be there, not because his touch is observable, or because there is a particularly large hole in speciation that needs to be filled with mysticism.

But just for emphasis, I think it's important we find out which gaps you have trouble with - which species? We don't even have to do humans, we can go for like... elephants or something.

 

[Blergmeister]

I think there can be more discussion around the whale picture.

The picture claims to show the evolutionary path of the whale from land based mammal. From what I can gather from JGS' argument, and please correct me on this, he agrees that all the animals shown there are valid species of animals who live within the time frames described on the graph. What he doesn't agree with is that the animals further up on the graph are ancestors of the animals below. They may be similarly created animals (at least to the ones immediately above and below) but they are not related in a family tree type of sense. What this leads me to believe that JGS believes is that those animals were created (not evolved from the one before) about the time the graph shows those animals appearing in the fossil record and then going extinct when they stop appearing. Do I have this right?

I am wondering. Do you believe the creator has any hand in the extinction process? I am guessing that you believe that there are natural/man caused extinctions but do you believe that God is more directly involved in any? In any from the whale example?

 

[Puddles]

JGS, I'm fairly certain that in 2500+ posts, this question has been asked before, but I'll have to ask again:

Why do you believe so strongly in the Bible/Christianity?

 

[JGS]

JGS, I'm fairly certain that in 2500+ posts, this question has been asked before, but I'll have to ask again:

Why do you believe so strongly in the Bible/Christianity?

FAKE EDIT: Longer post than planned after i finished typing. Slow work day!

I don't know if a strong belief is how I would characterize it. I'm willing to change belief in a second if mine are disproven. I'm not really that religious or else I would avoid Gaf like the plague nor would I include myself in arguments like this. In any event...

Long story short, on the fly and in no order of importance:

1. No one has shown concrete evidence to doubt my beliefs beyond their own opinion. If I have to choose between my opinion and someone else's with no other basis, I'll stick to mine.

2. I believe in God. I am unable to not believe in God. Whether that is a result of indoctrination at an early age (Although I switched religions) or not is irrelevant if someone can't explain why I should feel differently. TEH BIBLE IS TEH STUPIDZ is not good enough.

Even if ALL the facets of evolutionary theory are proven (They won't be), my beliefs would still be intact wouldn't they? If the Bible is shown as flawed (Insert joke), belief in God would not change. I guess I would stop being religious though.

3. I am impressed at how all the parts of the Bible fit together. I know it doesn't seem that way to most on the board, but it's in harmony. Even seperating the difference between the OT and NT, the amount of different writers in OT matching up is pretty incredible. The reality is that the NT matches up nicely too, even all the bloodshed stuff.

4. Differing opinions accompanied by condescending or rude comments does not make that particular opinion inviting in the first place. All it tells me is that is a club I don't mind not joining. I also get get the impression that, like me, convincing me isn't really the point.

5. IMO, logic is a big part of my beliefs. While that may be laughable to some, very few outside of fundamentalists and atheists think the earth was created in a creationist period of time (7 days of 24 hour periods). Science verifies it didn't happen this way and Scripture verifies God doesn't calculate time the same way that man does.

If that makes Genesis an allegory rather than literal, so be it. So I'm not quite sure what we're arguing about except that God doesn't exist. So for me, what we believe about Genesis doesn't change the fact that the Earth and the living creatures on it were created and nothing has been shown to disprove it which, although dismissed by some, is an important distinction in my book (No pun intended).

The real oddity to me is how can a handful of people outside the norms of the board cause a topic to rise up to 2500 posts when there are so many other topics to entertain people. Past topics in this thread show a very closed minded point of view about religion when discussing it with a religious person which is strange to me. Questions about my belief should be the norm rather than lame attempts at instructing me on those beliefs. You will always be wrong. However, in the big picture many are wrong too.

Very few religious folk think that slavery now is a good thing although they acknowledge it's existence/acceptance in the Bible. Very few would ever dream of lording over their wives while at the same time exercising headship. Yet all of those things are treated as OMGWTF moments which is why I sorta get a kick out of discussing it despite the pointlessness of it.
It seems pretty clear that non-believers reach too high wth their assumptions and the reality would normally smack them back down, but they refuse to see that. Everyone's a fundamentalist right wing wife beating red neck creationist.

I will say that probably 80% of my posts here are simply replying to posts addressed to me. When they die down, my activity dies down with it. Many act like this is all new stuff which kind of tells me that they don't talk to other religious folk that much unless it's on their turf. Gaf is a very non-religious type of place. I am largely a glutton for punishment, but take it in stride since Gaf is largely a deviation from the larger population- even when it comes to atheists so I keep that in perspective too.