Taking evolution: your inner fish course
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2014, 06:14 PM
RE: Taking evolution: your inner fish course
oh more good times in class... (my responses in bold)

D#########
DB3


Answersingenesis.org. Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism? answersingenesis.org. Hebon: AIG-US Public Information, 2001. Web. 16 July 2014. https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-e...aturalism/

This internet source sought to prove that homology does, in fact, prove that evolution has taken place. The source states that extensive evaluation of skeletons, muscles, nerves, body organs, cell ultrastructure and biochemistry of various animals have established that a great deal of similarity subsist in both their structure and function. Evolutionists argue that these comparisons prove the concept that all life evolved from a hypothetical ‘common ancestor’ protocell. This source states that homology is not simply a trivial confirmation of evolution, but rather has been extensively cited by evolutionists as one of the most compelling lines of evidence for their theory. Darwin concluded that homology was critically important evidence for common descent.



Oktar, Adnan. "The NAS'S Error in Portraying Common Structures as Evidence of Evolution." National Academy of Sciences Refuted. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 July 2014. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefu...lution.php

This internet source is refuting homology as proof of evolution. Basically what is stated is that Darwinists of the past and present consider evolution from a common ancestor as the source of homology; simultaneously, they also depict homology as the strongest proof for descent from a common ancestor. The problem with this thinking is that recent advances in microbiology, anatomy, and biochemistry have provided evidence showing that homology does not amount to proof for the theory of evolution, and that descent from a common ancestor isn’t the basis of homology. Homology is circular reasoning and proves nothing. There are also common structures among living things for which evolutionists do not claim an evolutionary relationship. Similar structures in many living things are not caused by similar genes. This shows that they do not have a common evolutionary origin. In living things with homologous organs, the developmental stages of these organs are very different. This again shows that these organs do not come from a common ancestor.

D########,

I find it interesting that you chose the answersingenesis site as supporting homology, as this young earth creationist misinformation propaganda website focuses on disproving everything that doesn’t point to literal biblical interpretations of the world around us. They try really hard to spin science to try to show it supports the ridiculous posit that the world is 6,000 years old. On the link you provided, if you scroll all the way down after reading the article in its entirety, you see this last statement under conclusion;

CONCLUSION:

“As scientists learnt more about anatomy, physiology and especially genetics, the concept of homology increasingly came under attack. One problem however, was that examples which seemed to fit evolutionary assumptions were often cited, while the many examples that do not fit were ignored. And, in time, more and more examples were discovered that had to be ignored. Eventually, as one observer noted, homology led Darwinists to assemble very select examples that seemed to prove ancestor-descendant relationships that often were quite convincing.

The recent information explosion in embryology, microbiology, genetics and especially molecular biology has revealed in minute detail how plants and animals are constructed at the molecular level. If the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct, then we would expect that the same homologies found at the macroscopic level also exist at the microscopic, biochemical and genetic levels. What researchers in each of these fields often find, has greatly undermined the homology concept. So many exceptions now exist that molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the homology theory should be rejected. His main argument is that genetic research has not shown that homologous structures are produced by homologous genes and follow homologous patterns of embryological development. Instead, genetics has found that homologous structures are ‘often specified by non-homologous genetic systems’ and furthermore, the homology ‘can seldom be extended back into embryology’.

Why do most scientists accept macroevolution theory? A major reason is that it is now the accepted world view of scientists—an idea to which they are exposed from the earliest days of training, and by which they are surrounded daily. Most scientists are influenced by social pressure, and many believers fear recriminations from their fellow scientists if they do not conform to what currently is viewed as correct. To prove their orthodoxy, many scientists have become unscientific and have embraced the religion of 20th century-naturalism. Belief in evolutionism requires a credulity induced partly by pressure to conform to a world of science that is saturated with naturalism.”(AIG 2014)

Counter:

Why do most creationists accept ID? A major reason is that is the accepted perspective from their religion of choice…an idea to which they are exposed to from the earliest days of persuasive training from the church and family, and by which they are surrounded daily…..a form of brainwashing essentially. Believers are highly subjective to peer pressure amongst their inner circles, like all humans are, and they fear recriminations from their fellow believers if they do not conform, and pretend to believe what they must know is absolute fabrication in the face of so much superior evidence to the contrary. Of course the brilliance in religion is the sale job of “doubt is the devil trying to steal your soul” so any inner reasoning and logic that springs up within their minds is quickly squashed. A very successful business model to be honest, fear is good business, and religion is based on fear. “believe or spend eternity in hell”….

What Ken Ham (the founder of this misinformation site) fails to realize is that young earth creationism has been so thoroughly debunked by an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, that it falls under the category of pseudescience. Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. A religious argument requires belief in a transcendental theory of reality. A belief in a transcendental reality requires faith, faith is the belief in something without evidence, thus it is by design, a failed method of epistemology. A person is at a distinct disadvantage if they view the real world around us with “blind faith”. As I have said before, there is a good reason ID isn’t taught in public school, it is because it lacks evidence. Surprisingly even in this country where 65% of Americans purport to believe in various forms of a supernatural magical being/s that created everything, it is still not taught in school. It seems, fact over rules fiction, even if the majority believes in the fable. Thankfully.

Good post


Reference:

Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-e...aturalism/

Eric

---------------------------------------------------



In an article authored by Heather Scoville she contends that similarities between species it is evidence of common ancestry and thus evolution and makes reference to Sir Richard Owen’s statement: “one bone, two bones, a bunch of bones” to show similarities between whales, bats, cats, and humans. She also explains that the functionality of similar structures (specifically limbs) were as varied as the species themselves. According to Scoville, homology helps to determine placement on the phylogenetic tree and has precipitated changes to past classifications. Because of homology, species are not automatically categorized according to their appearance. Finally, Scoville asserts that DNA corroborates the assertion that homologous structures illustrate common ancestry.





In contrast, Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson counters evolutionist’s reasoning against an intelligent designer and refutes their explanation of common ancestry by using a “parking lot test.” In his article, he compares homology with motor vehicles – equating “development to construction and genetics to blueprints.” Jeanson explains that although Japanese and American cars have similarities their “origins are continents apart.” Jeanson emphasizes that vehicles have common structures because they have a common designer. He also shows evidence of transitional forms between land vehicles (tanks and troop carriers) and sea vehicles (aircraft carriers and submarines). In short, Dr. Jeanson attributes commonalities in species and vehicles to “deliberate engineering.”



Respectfully,

B############



References:



Jeanson, N.T. (2013). Does’homology’ prove evolution? Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/does-homology...evolution/



Scoville, H. (n.d.). Homologous structures. Retrieved from http://evolution.about.com/od/evidence/a...ctures.htm


B#####,

You bring up a good point..."deliberate engineering". I wonder though if “deliberate engineering”, which of course implies a creator, which implies the anthropocentric Abrahamic faith based view of first causal, can explain why there is so much “bad design”…or maybe a better way to put it, “bad engineering”?

“… The idea of perfect design is an illusion. Every species is imperfect in many ways. Kiwis have useless wings, whales have a vestigial pelvis, and our appendix is a nefarious organ”.… “If organisms were built from scratch by a designer – one who used biological building blocks of nerves, muscles, bone, and so on – they would not have created such imperfections. Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it is precisely what we expect from evolution.” (Coyne 2009 p81)

“One of nature’s worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. Running from the brain to the larynx, this nerve helps us speak and swallow. The curious thing is that is much longer than it needs to be. Rather than taking a direct route the brain to larynx, a distance of about a foot in humans, the nerve runs down into our chest, loops around the aorta and a ligament derived from an artery, and travels back up to connect to larynx.” (Coyne 2009 p82)

Another good example of “bad engineering”would be the human eye. Rather than regurgitate a very lengthy explanation of how imperfect the design of the human eye is, I instead will provide a link to a video (Ref B) made by a world renowned specialist, Richard Dawkins, as well as a link to a written breakdown by Doctor Pitman. (Pitman 2008)

A different angle showing evolution or in this case almost a de-evolution, would be the cave fish that has eye stalks, nerve endings, but no eyeball. (Jeffery 2012)

I could post pages of examples showing “bad design” of many living organisms that would solidly refute the deliberate engineering concept. However, these should suffice.

Good post

Eric

References:

Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Retrieved from http://youtu.be/Nwew5gHoh3E

Pitman, S. (2008) Retrieved from http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

Jeffery, W. To See or Not to See: Evolution of Eye Degeneration in Mexican Blind Cavefish. Retrieved from http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/531.long

--------------------------------------------------

Evolutionists drive home the point of common ancestry but I believe a common designer could have created the commonalities. I know my opinion is based upon by upbringing but I believe there are some things that we cannot explain. Scientists develop tests to try to account for our being and when new data is received, they amend previous claims and change their reasoning based on the prevalent theory of the day while creationists remain steadfast in their beliefs.



Respectfully,

B######

B######,

You bring up an interesting point. “they amend previous claims and change their reasoning based on the prevalent theory of the day while creationists remain steadfast in their beliefs.”

I couldn’t agree more. Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falsify the claim that the norse god Loki was able to assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works...unlike the religious leaders who base it on hubris belief in a fabricated fairy tale. It always intrigues me when I hear people say things like, “I don’t care what evidence you have to the contrary, I will still believe”…..wow..kind of puts a perfect definition to blind faith.

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence, than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This cannot point one to the path of truth. Here are five points believers/non believers should be able to agree upon.

1) There are different faith traditions.

2) Different faith traditions make different truth claims.

3) The truth claims of some faith traditions contradict the truth claims of other faith traditions. For example, Muslims believe Muhammad (570-632) was the last prophet (Sura 33:40). Mormons believe Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who lived after Muhammad was a prophet.

4) It cannot both be the case that Muhammad was the last prophet, and someone who lived after him was also a prophet.

5) Therefore: At LEAST one of these claims must be false....perhaps both....

It is impossible to figure out which of these claims is incorrect if the tool one uses is faith. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way….yet.

Just something to ponder..


Eric

Facepalm

makes me feel smarter each day

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 07:21 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 07:48 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Taking evolution: your inner fish course
sigh, so as we wrap up this course, I have to share with you one special person's post to disprove evolution...

I replied to her post by quoting a statement she said, and then answered the 7 points she made one by one, I will bold my parts to ease reading.

------------------------------------------------
B######,

You said,

"Additionally, the Changing Lives Online organization discusses seven points supported by citations from past and present evolutionists and scientists alike to argue their points claiming that:" Lets look at these with a bit more scrutiny:



1. “The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

- This is what is known as a knowledge claim, or faith claim. It is usually said quite assertively as if the sheer gusto of the delivery will make the listener nod their head in agreement without actually registering that what you just asserted is false. To state the universe could not have created itself is a claim which has no basis, same for stating it has not always existed. There is no evidence of this claim, it is in fact complete conjecture.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

- A common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time. How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time? The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy. Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply.

3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living things

- Well, for starters, this is a textbook case of the “God in the gaps” argument. It goes like this: We don’t understand X, therefore God created X.

Additionally, nobody, especially not any atheists I’ve ever encountered, have ever said that something could be made from nothing. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it’s just a straw man that the religious like to stand up and knock down to impress themselves. Life on earth was created by basic elements that are found all over the universe, and scientists have already used experiments to form protobionts in conditions resembling early earth. This took only a matter of days to accomplish. Imagine what can be done in several hundred million years.

What is particularly curious to me about the “something from nothing” straw man argument is how religious people fail to see it suggests the non-existence of their own god. How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?


4. Complex Systems do not evolve ‘bit by bit’

- Actually they do, that is how evolution works, things that mutate and do not survive, get cleansed out of nature, things that make a tiny adjustment that allows their survivability, do…one step at a time, we are talking billions of years.

5. The Missing Links are Still Missing.

- Probably the most ignorant straw man posit. Millions of life forms have developed over billions of years, most didn’t make it, all of them obviously would not fall into the perfect conditions to make a fossil. We do have multiple transitional fossils, but no, we don’t have them all, nor shall we ever. That fact doesn’t dispute evolution, it actually proves it.

6. Mutations are contrary to Evolution

- sigh, no, no they are not, this was covered during this course.

7. Probability Facts are contrary to Evolution”

- Very weak attempt to spin the information. There are 300 billion planets in our galaxy alone, the odds that one planet would have the right temperature, the right mixture of gases and the right environment to let life slowly form and evolve was only…1 in 300 billion. 4.54 billion years to evolve to where we are today. Clearly these guys never took a statistics course.

Good post

Eric


----------------------------------

Then another short one, she responded to B####### with this,

Hello B#######,

I totally agree with you, in order to prove evolution scientist must go back to the beginning of time. When you think about that, evolution really doesn't make much sense at all. I also agree with you, that the Bible starts off in Genesis telling us how God spoke things into existence. I must say that I believe the Bible 100% and I believe the Bible t be the word of God and Truth.

J#####

So I replied with a helping hand of knowledge,

J#####,

I recommend you take a few theology courses, you would be surprised to find out who wrote what, why and under whose direction.

The OT was written in 575-550 BCE by a group of Judean priests who used four sources as their inspiration. Religious and biblical scholars agree that the five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came from four sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly source, each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors. I could break this down, and have before in great detail, but it is about a 45 page document. Suffice it to say, Moses is a mythical biblical character, and he didn’t write the genesis account.

A lot of the J traditions came from Sumeria, the Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic. They were used as sources for the Creation myth and the Flood myth.

So if belief in a god is derived from the bible, and the bible is riddled with pseudepigrapha, interpolations, fictional parables and allegorical writings how does one arrive at belief?

Saint Leo has tons of theology course, I highly recommend Christianity spirituality vision REL 123, or History of christianty REL 450, it will be an eye opening experience for you. Best of luck

Eric


they make me feel smart, they really do.... Facepalm Drooling Smartass

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 02:02 PM
RE: Taking evolution: your inner fish course
(24-08-2014 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  sigh, so as we wrap up this course, I have to share with you one special person's post to disprove evolution...

I replied to her post by quoting a statement she said, and then answered the 7 points she made one by one, I will bold my parts to ease reading.

------------------------------------------------
B######,

You said,

"Additionally, the Changing Lives Online organization discusses seven points supported by citations from past and present evolutionists and scientists alike to argue their points claiming that:" Lets look at these with a bit more scrutiny:



1. “The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

- This is what is known as a knowledge claim, or faith claim. It is usually said quite assertively as if the sheer gusto of the delivery will make the listener nod their head in agreement without actually registering that what you just asserted is false. To state the universe could not have created itself is a claim which has no basis, same for stating it has not always existed. There is no evidence of this claim, it is in fact complete conjecture.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

- A common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time. How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time? The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy. Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply.

3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living things

- Well, for starters, this is a textbook case of the “God in the gaps” argument. It goes like this: We don’t understand X, therefore God created X.

Additionally, nobody, especially not any atheists I’ve ever encountered, have ever said that something could be made from nothing. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it’s just a straw man that the religious like to stand up and knock down to impress themselves. Life on earth was created by basic elements that are found all over the universe, and scientists have already used experiments to form protobionts in conditions resembling early earth. This took only a matter of days to accomplish. Imagine what can be done in several hundred million years.

What is particularly curious to me about the “something from nothing” straw man argument is how religious people fail to see it suggests the non-existence of their own god. How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?


4. Complex Systems do not evolve ‘bit by bit’

- Actually they do, that is how evolution works, things that mutate and do not survive, get cleansed out of nature, things that make a tiny adjustment that allows their survivability, do…one step at a time, we are talking billions of years.

5. The Missing Links are Still Missing.

- Probably the most ignorant straw man posit. Millions of life forms have developed over billions of years, most didn’t make it, all of them obviously would not fall into the perfect conditions to make a fossil. We do have multiple transitional fossils, but no, we don’t have them all, nor shall we ever. That fact doesn’t dispute evolution, it actually proves it.

6. Mutations are contrary to Evolution

- sigh, no, no they are not, this was covered during this course.

7. Probability Facts are contrary to Evolution”

- Very weak attempt to spin the information. There are 300 billion planets in our galaxy alone, the odds that one planet would have the right temperature, the right mixture of gases and the right environment to let life slowly form and evolve was only…1 in 300 billion. 4.54 billion years to evolve to where we are today. Clearly these guys never took a statistics course.

Good post

Eric


----------------------------------

Then another short one, she responded to B####### with this,

Hello B#######,

I totally agree with you, in order to prove evolution scientist must go back to the beginning of time. When you think about that, evolution really doesn't make much sense at all. I also agree with you, that the Bible starts off in Genesis telling us how God spoke things into existence. I must say that I believe the Bible 100% and I believe the Bible t be the word of God and Truth.

J#####

So I replied with a helping hand of knowledge,

J#####,

I recommend you take a few theology courses, you would be surprised to find out who wrote what, why and under whose direction.

The OT was written in 575-550 BCE by a group of Judean priests who used four sources as their inspiration. Religious and biblical scholars agree that the five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came from four sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly source, each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors. I could break this down, and have before in great detail, but it is about a 45 page document. Suffice it to say, Moses is a mythical biblical character, and he didn’t write the genesis account.

A lot of the J traditions came from Sumeria, the Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic. They were used as sources for the Creation myth and the Flood myth.

So if belief in a god is derived from the bible, and the bible is riddled with pseudepigrapha, interpolations, fictional parables and allegorical writings how does one arrive at belief?

Saint Leo has tons of theology course, I highly recommend Christianity spirituality vision REL 123, or History of christianty REL 450, it will be an eye opening experience for you. Best of luck

Eric


they make me feel smart, they really do.... Facepalm Drooling Smartass

I'm very addicted to reading the comment sections of youtube science and evolution videos. I just can't help myself. Not only do I learn about science through the video but by reading the comments. I can pick out the posts made by intelligent, educated and science minded people, some of whom are very patient with crazy creationists that denounce evolution. Actually I've noticed that the more patient the scientist is explaining evolution to the creationist, the more educated that science person usually is. But of course most comments are inane, stupid people on both sides who are just butting heads and no one gets anywhere.

Anyway, thanks for posting all this. It's interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
25-08-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: Taking evolution: your inner fish course
(25-08-2014 02:02 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 07:21 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  sigh, so as we wrap up this course, I have to share with you one special person's post to disprove evolution...

I replied to her post by quoting a statement she said, and then answered the 7 points she made one by one, I will bold my parts to ease reading.

------------------------------------------------
B######,

You said,

"Additionally, the Changing Lives Online organization discusses seven points supported by citations from past and present evolutionists and scientists alike to argue their points claiming that:" Lets look at these with a bit more scrutiny:



1. “The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

- This is what is known as a knowledge claim, or faith claim. It is usually said quite assertively as if the sheer gusto of the delivery will make the listener nod their head in agreement without actually registering that what you just asserted is false. To state the universe could not have created itself is a claim which has no basis, same for stating it has not always existed. There is no evidence of this claim, it is in fact complete conjecture.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

- A common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time. How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time? The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy. Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply.

3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living things

- Well, for starters, this is a textbook case of the “God in the gaps” argument. It goes like this: We don’t understand X, therefore God created X.

Additionally, nobody, especially not any atheists I’ve ever encountered, have ever said that something could be made from nothing. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it’s just a straw man that the religious like to stand up and knock down to impress themselves. Life on earth was created by basic elements that are found all over the universe, and scientists have already used experiments to form protobionts in conditions resembling early earth. This took only a matter of days to accomplish. Imagine what can be done in several hundred million years.

What is particularly curious to me about the “something from nothing” straw man argument is how religious people fail to see it suggests the non-existence of their own god. How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?


4. Complex Systems do not evolve ‘bit by bit’

- Actually they do, that is how evolution works, things that mutate and do not survive, get cleansed out of nature, things that make a tiny adjustment that allows their survivability, do…one step at a time, we are talking billions of years.

5. The Missing Links are Still Missing.

- Probably the most ignorant straw man posit. Millions of life forms have developed over billions of years, most didn’t make it, all of them obviously would not fall into the perfect conditions to make a fossil. We do have multiple transitional fossils, but no, we don’t have them all, nor shall we ever. That fact doesn’t dispute evolution, it actually proves it.

6. Mutations are contrary to Evolution

- sigh, no, no they are not, this was covered during this course.

7. Probability Facts are contrary to Evolution”

- Very weak attempt to spin the information. There are 300 billion planets in our galaxy alone, the odds that one planet would have the right temperature, the right mixture of gases and the right environment to let life slowly form and evolve was only…1 in 300 billion. 4.54 billion years to evolve to where we are today. Clearly these guys never took a statistics course.

Good post

Eric


----------------------------------

Then another short one, she responded to B####### with this,

Hello B#######,

I totally agree with you, in order to prove evolution scientist must go back to the beginning of time. When you think about that, evolution really doesn't make much sense at all. I also agree with you, that the Bible starts off in Genesis telling us how God spoke things into existence. I must say that I believe the Bible 100% and I believe the Bible t be the word of God and Truth.

J#####

So I replied with a helping hand of knowledge,

J#####,

I recommend you take a few theology courses, you would be surprised to find out who wrote what, why and under whose direction.

The OT was written in 575-550 BCE by a group of Judean priests who used four sources as their inspiration. Religious and biblical scholars agree that the five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came from four sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly source, each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors. I could break this down, and have before in great detail, but it is about a 45 page document. Suffice it to say, Moses is a mythical biblical character, and he didn’t write the genesis account.

A lot of the J traditions came from Sumeria, the Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic. They were used as sources for the Creation myth and the Flood myth.

So if belief in a god is derived from the bible, and the bible is riddled with pseudepigrapha, interpolations, fictional parables and allegorical writings how does one arrive at belief?

Saint Leo has tons of theology course, I highly recommend Christianity spirituality vision REL 123, or History of christianty REL 450, it will be an eye opening experience for you. Best of luck

Eric


they make me feel smart, they really do.... Facepalm Drooling Smartass

I'm very addicted to reading the comment sections of youtube science and evolution videos. I just can't help myself. Not only do I learn about science through the video but by reading the comments. I can pick out the posts made by intelligent, educated and science minded people, some of whom are very patient with crazy creationists that denounce evolution. Actually I've noticed that the more patient the scientist is explaining evolution to the creationist, the more educated that science person usually is. But of course most comments are inane, stupid people on both sides who are just butting heads and no one gets anywhere.

Anyway, thanks for posting all this. It's interesting.

I thought people would find it interesting to see the different points of view Drooling

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 05:59 PM
RE: Taking evolution: your inner fish course
(03-07-2014 06:54 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(03-07-2014 06:21 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Well you are a smart guy I know you will complete this quickly and correctly. When you are done are you going to post it in a thread or hear. When ever you are done tell me, it seems to be great that I am not the only one here debunking creationist crap(even though I have not done it in a while)

I love taking religious courses, and enjoy dismantling their position with facts, reason and logic. They are at a distinct disadvantage as they believe in a fabricated fairy tale. I hone my skills there, plus in order to be able to dismantle the enemy, one must understand them and their perspective. All the better to tear it down. I am sure some funny stuff will come out through the course in the discussions. Anything especially droll I will add to this thread. Drooling

I actually agree - my religious background does help me understand the religious mentality and debate really well. I love it when a preacher comes to the door expecting some naive person to convert and they find me - the incarnation of the devil.Evil_monster
...and the thing is I am really kind natured to the preacher be it Jehovah witness, some muslim or evangelical Christian - no bigotry or name calling - just soul annihilation via the socratic method & science education.

...so Mr Jesus, why do you have nipples ? Where they designed by God ?
...and for the ladies...wow, they were designed by God and you need to show me !

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: