Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder

[n.c.]

Jack & Rogan- How's this one?

A creationist has a sick daughter. When he gets to the hospital, he says "give her the best science has to offer!" Upon leaving, daughter cured, he walks past a poster advertising a lecture on evolution. He mutters to himself "silly scientists, what do they know."

In other words, you guys can swap analogies all day, but unless you get to the root of this denial your conversation is pointless.

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

So, if I see "some gaps" between buildings, then cities don't exist?

Let's try an analogy. A creationist walks onto a construction site. This creationist has, for mysterious reasons he won't explain, decided that all houses are miraculously created by God. He sees houses made of bricks, he sees bricklayers at work, and he sees a few houses acually completed while he's watching.

But, being an experienced creationist, he is adept at the art of self-delusion. The laying of bricks is "micro-building", and cannot lead to "macro-building" (the construction of entire houses from the ground up). The completion of a new house (equivalent to speciation) is a "minor improvement" too trivial to consider. Houses aren't really made of bricks anyhow, it's just that God makes them look that way.

One small correction...

The experienced creationist would recognize that none of the buildings would be there without the intelligent design and work of the builder.

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by n.c.
Jack & Rogan- How's this one?

A creationist has a sick daughter. When he gets to the hospital, he says "give her the best science has to offer!" Upon leaving, daughter cured, he walks past a poster advertising a lecture on evolution. He mutters to himself "silly scientists, what do they know."

Analogies are too easy to poke holes through & therefore poor debate material. The "best" medical science had to offer many years ago was leeches and bleeding, scientists are not all knowing and therefore are able to make mistakes and form erroneous theory. I would hope we can all agree on that point at least.

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

So, if I see "some gaps" between buildings, then cities don't exist?

No, the city still exists but was built by a creator.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

That's the situation with evolution. We can see evolution happening, we can see that creatures have evolved, we can watch new traits emerging and see new species appear.

How can you say that we can see creatures have evolved when there are great gaps in the so-called evidence for this? New traits emerging are not a valid argument for macroevolution. This is simple adaptation to environmental changes. Again, there is no credible evidence to show that inter-species transitions have taken place. The "examples" of transitional forms listed above are still debated, even in evolutionist circles.

What is the last species that man has seen appear?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Let's try another analogy. An evolutionist walks into a city. He sees lots of sandstone buildings, as he walks down to the beach. On the beach is a small boy making sand castles. The evolutionist realizes that this is the same material used to build the houses. He concludes that the little boy built all of the houses in the city.

If the kid is actually making sandstone blocks from the sand and constructing buildings from them, and there is good reason to believe he's been doing it for millions of years, that is a reasonable hypothesis. And it becomes more than a hypothesis if subsequent analysis shows child handprints all over the blocks and little footprints everywhere.

A creationist would find a gap in the footprints and say "this gap disproves the theory".

[n.c.]

PatRussell- Thank you for again demonstrating my observation regarding dodging/ignoring points. I'm sure the scientists will oblige by trying to correct you.

The closest you came to an actual response in the last few posts was the following:

scientists are not all knowing and therefore are able to make mistakes and form erroneous theory.

That is not what I said. What we have here is the selective denial of the results of a process for unsupportable reasons.

BTW, the whole leeches thing was a product of superstition, not science.

[Saint Marcus]

I sorta like your argument style, Mark L... and we found something we argee on... which is strange.

wow...amazing

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by PatRussell

How can you say that we can see creatures have evolved when there are great gaps in the so-called evidence for this? New traits emerging are not a valid argument for macroevolution. This is simple adaptation to environmental changes. Again, there is no credible evidence to show that inter-species transitions have taken place. The "examples" of transitional forms listed above are still debated, even in evolutionist circles.

"Great gaps in the so-called evidence"? Name one.

"No credible evidence to show that inter-species transitions have taken place"? What would you describe as "creditable evidence"?

And nobody in "evolutionist circles" doubts that speciation has been observed. I think you may be getting confused by the fact that "species" definitions are blurred: a fact that supports evolution, all creatures are related.

The absurdity of this argument should be obvious. What we see is exactly what we should expect to see if evolution were true. We wouldn't expect the fossil record to show perfectly-preserved examples of every species that has ever lived, but what we see fits evolution. We wouldn't expect to see huge changes in organisms within our lifetime, but observed evolution rates are generally consistent with the amount of change over time revealed in the fossil record. When we measure genetic similarities between organisms and compare with our theories of how they're related, the data fits. And so it goes...

In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published Origin Of Species, no evidence which contradicts evolution has ever been discovered. All claims to the contrary which have been investigated have been revealed as blunders or hoaxes. Over and over and over again, the creationists have been defeated. But they just don't know when to quit.

And "simple adaptation to environmental changes" IS evolution.

I'd like you to answer this simple question:

What process prevents "micro-evolution" becoming "macro-evolution"? What is this magic barrier, and where does it lie? What causes it, how does it operate, and why is there any reason whatsoever to believe that this barrier exists at all?

[Jack the Bodiless]

...Ack, double post.

[aaglo]

"No credible evidence to show that inter-species transitions have taken place"? Where is the evidence of Creation (I know, it's a stupid question. Like the whole debate )? I think there is more evidence on theory of evolution than theory of creation.

An example of evolution of humans during a few centuries. Human height has grown since 15th century about 20 cm (at least in Finland). That is due to the increased health and disease control; thus adapting to the changes in environment (read: evolution). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
If the kid is actually making sandstone blocks from the sand and constructing buildings from them, and there is good reason to believe he's been doing it for millions of years, that is a reasonable hypothesis.

But that is the point: people will always differ on the point at which the evidence becomes 'reasonable'. It is completely subjective.

There is evidence for evolution which evolutionists believe to be convincing enough to say that man was created through evolution. There are however, many people (including the creationists but others too) who do not believe this evidence is enough to make such categorical statements about the validity of evolution.

Likewise, there is evidence for sonpaneous creation by a supernatural being which creationists believe to be convincing enough to say that man was created in this way. However, there are plenty other people who do not see this 'evidence' as evidence at all.

Scientists should not make subjective declarations. It is fair enough to personally believe one thing over another and from a scientific point of view it is also valid to study the questions which you think are most important first, thereby implicity making a decision about which scenario you believe to be most likely. But it is not good scientific practice to say 'this cannot be true because we have no evidence for it'.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by aaglo
An example of evolution of humans during a few centuries. Human height has grown since 15th century about 20 cm (at least in Finland). That is due to the increased health and disease control; thus adapting to the changes in environment (read: evolution). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I will correct you then, since you asked so nicely. Yes you are wrong - this is not evolution. Evolution (in its traditional sense) is a change in the genetic structure. In this case it would mean that short people were disadvantaged and could not survive as well as tall people, therefore not successfully passing on thie 'short' genes. The tall people would produce more offspring (who would have 'tall' genes) and society would become dominated by tall people. In the case you quote however, the difference in height is due entirely to diet - not genetic change - therfore it is not evidence for evolution.

Evolution in man is on a much longer time scale (tens of thousands of years). For short lived organisms such as bacteria it can be as short as days though.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Likewise, there is evidence for sonpaneous creation by a supernatural being which creationists believe to be convincing enough to say that man was created in this way. However, there are plenty other people who do not see this 'evidence' as evidence at all.

...it is not good scientific practice to say 'this cannot be true because we have no evidence for it'.

Good points, good post RJ

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Scientists should not make subjective declarations. It is fair enough to personally believe one thing over another and from a scientific point of view it is also valid to study the questions which you think are most important first, thereby implicity making a decision about which scenario you believe to be most likely. But it is not good scientific practice to say 'this cannot be true because we have no evidence for it'.

I think this is a valid point (we agree ). I have tried to keep my argument simple - you cannot state categorically, based on existing evidence, that macroevolution is a fact.

The barrier between microevolution and macroevolution is the addition of genetic information that would be required for this to be true. The magnitude of mutations that add info would need to be much greater than can be demonstrated or observed.

I will be unavailable for the next week and will not be able to respond regularly (if at all) to any replies. Please do not think that I have run away from the discussion, more pressing matters are at hand.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I will correct you then, since you asked so nicely

Thank you.

Yes you are wrong - this is not evolution. Evolution (in its traditional sense) is a change in the genetic structure.

The correction seems to be in order.

In this case it would mean that short people were disadvantaged and could not survive as well as tall people, therefore not successfully passing on thie 'short' genes. The tall people would produce more offspring (who would have 'tall' genes) and society would become dominated by tall people. In the case you quote however, the difference in height is due entirely to diet - not genetic change - therfore it is not evidence for evolution.

Yes - it is only an example of Micro-evolution mentioned earlier in this thread. Inevitably this kind of height increase will affect on the genetics of humans - the bone and muscular structure will adapt to the "new height standards".