Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
13 Aug 2007 02:31:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11007@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that species in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences. But each parent
is almost exactly the same as the direct descendent. What you describe
seems much more like creationism, or at least some form of design,
where the outside entity replaces one set of genes with another.
Micro steps where the change is merely cosmetic: micro-evolution.
Can you give me a definition of "cosmetic" changes? Are changes in
bone length and density cosmetic?
Micro-steps where the change is turning into drastically new functionality
(like the beginnings of wings, or gills, when no parent ever had wings or
gills, as just one example) is something entirely different:
macro-evolution.
What would the *beginning* of wings look like? Is some extra skin
between toes or between legs and the body the *beginning* of wings?
It is this sort of drastic functionality differences, even
if you claim it comes by "micro" steps, that there is no evidence of. If you
have such evidence of a species, via these "micro" steps, acquiring
_drastically new functionality that no parent *ever* had_, please present
it. You said there were "thousands" of cases. Please present 100 of them.
To the extent that your question maps actual evolution I have given
you this evidence.
So again: Still waiting for that list of 100 (out of "thousands") that you
have yet to provide even one example from: animals morphing over
generations
into drastically new, functionally different species no parent ever was.
Not
micro-organisms producing .. micro-organisms.
How about this:
why don't you tell me what that evidence would look
like, if it existed. If you are not asking for the small changes
between generations, what do you want?
I've been telling you, but you seem to have not understood it. Hopefully
what I've explained above clears it up.
No, it does not. What would the *beginning* of some feature look like?
Would you like to see the fossil sequence showing the change in
functionality of the jaw bones to ear bones? We don't have every
single step, but we have lots.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
13 Aug 2007 09:40:50 PM |
|
|
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11007@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of
micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences.
At some point, an offspring has to have _some_ sign of the beginnings of a
feature that no parent ever had. You admit this as you say there are tiny
changes over generations, not a drastic change at one birth. And this is the
point where you go off in a direction you have no evidence of. Show evidence
of any species that over generations evolved into some completely new
species with drastically different functionality. The most blatant example:
wings where no parent ever had wings. Gils where no parent ever had gills.
Lungs where no parent ever had lungs. Eyes where no parent ever had eyes.
You get the idea. It's evidence of this drastic difference between a parent,
and an offspring many generations down the line that does not exist.
We have evidence that dogs made different looking dogs many generations down
the line. Whales made different looking whales many generations down the
line. Giraffes made different looking giraffes many generations down the
line. There's no evidence that land walking animals with no wings made
animals with wings that fly many generations down the line. There's no
evidence that land walking animals with no feathers made animals with
feathers many generations down the line. This is the evidence that does not
exist, and that's a minute part of it. The only evidence you've shown was
that of what we already are fully aware of: offspring, unless they're
identical twins, look cosmetically different from each other and their
parents in minor ways. You've no proof this sort of cosmetic differences
suddenly leads to growing feathers for the first time in that species
existence, and so on.
You may believe this is a logical extension of micro-evolution, but until
you provide such specific evidence (which no one has yet to find), it's not
even science to consider it true, as it's not observable, testable, or
verifiable.
But each parent
is almost exactly the same as the direct descendent. What you describe
seems much more like creationism, or at least some form of design,
where the outside entity replaces one set of genes with another.
Micro steps where the change is merely cosmetic: micro-evolution.
Can you give me a definition of "cosmetic" changes? Are changes in
bone length and density cosmetic?
Micro-steps where the change is turning into drastically new functionality
(like the beginnings of wings, or gills, when no parent ever had wings or
gills, as just one example) is something entirely different:
macro-evolution.
What would the *beginning* of wings look like?
You don't know? I know why I don't know, because it's not what ever
happened. The parent had wings, and so did the offspring. Since you believe
it's possible that a wingless, featherless species could evolve wings in
future generations in tiny steps, it would help your level of objectivity to
ask yourself why you don't know what it would look like if you claimed to
have thousands of examples of such amazing appearances of drastically new
features in the life of a species that never had that feature before, and
will never be the same if it continues.
It is this type of evidence that does not exist. Your inability to even
describe what the minor introduction of such features would look like speaks
volumes of what I've said from the beginning: there is no evidence of this
at all, which would explain why you have no idea what any of those cases
would look like.
Is some extra skin
between toes or between legs and the body the *beginning* of wings?
It is this sort of drastic functionality differences, even
if you claim it comes by "micro" steps, that there is no evidence of. If
you
have such evidence of a species, via these "micro" steps, acquiring
_drastically new functionality that no parent *ever* had_, please present
it. You said there were "thousands" of cases. Please present 100 of them.
To the extent that your question maps actual evolution I have given
you this evidence.
So again: Still waiting for that list of 100 (out of "thousands") that
you
have yet to provide even one example from: animals morphing over
generations
into drastically new, functionally different species no parent ever was.
Not
micro-organisms producing .. micro-organisms.
How about this:
why don't you tell me what that evidence would look
like, if it existed. If you are not asking for the small changes
between generations, what do you want?
I've been telling you, but you seem to have not understood it. Hopefully
what I've explained above clears it up.
No, it does not. What would the *beginning* of some feature look like?
Would you like to see the fossil sequence showing the change in
functionality of the jaw bones to ear bones? We don't have every
single step, but we have lots.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
18 Aug 2007 09:04:26 AM |
|
|
On Aug 14, 10:40 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Says the hopelessly clueless creationist.
Your god doesn't exist. Therefore he didn't design anything.
Mutation and natural selection explain how we came to be here. Get
that through your thick head!
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
20 Aug 2007 04:45:18 PM |
|
|
Martin wrote:
On Aug 14, 10:40 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Says the hopelessly clueless creationist.
Your god doesn't exist. Therefore he didn't design anything.
Mutation and natural selection explain how we came to be here. Get
that through your thick head!
Martin
So you're ok with being a "mutant"?
Jd
Genesis 1:26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
18 Aug 2007 09:06:11 AM |
|
|
On Aug 14, 10:40 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
What would the *beginning* of wings look like?
You don't know?
It was a rhetorical question, *****.
Is some extra skin
between toes or between legs and the body the *beginning* of wings?
See?
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
14 Aug 2007 10:06:36 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:40:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<SC8wi.426320$p47.370402@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11007@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of
micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Actually, I do.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences.
At some point, an offspring has to have _some_ sign of the beginnings of a
feature that no parent ever had.
Do you see that you change your standard with each request? Here you
ask for a small change, but when I show you evidence of such small
changes you ask for evidence of great big changes.
You admit this as you say there are tiny
changes over generations, not a drastic change at one birth.
I don't "admit" it, I has said it right out. We have this evidence.
And we have long chains of such changes. You want evidence of some
great big change and get distressed when I point out that all of the
steps are small. Big radical changes are creationist, not
evolutionary.
And this is the
point where you go off in a direction you have no evidence of. Show evidence
of any species that over generations evolved into some completely new
species with drastically different functionality.
How about the evidence of the change in jaw bones in the mammal line
to ear bones?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=527675D9-E7F2-99DF-3265F1A19B72042F
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/march/news_11207.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Science/Tiny-jawbone-is-a-prehistoric-earsplitting-wonder/2005/02/11/1108061872211.html
Jaw to ear seems rather drastic. We can then look at the developmental
evidence where the homologous structures in reptiles become jaw bones
while in mammals become ear bones (and in fish become gills).
The most blatant example:
wings where no parent ever had wings.
As I keep saying, this is not how evolution works. A "no wing" parent
has a "no wing with a change" descendent. Many generations later those
changes build up to a "sort of wing" parent having a descendent with
"sort of wings plus a change" and then many generations later we get
an "almost a wing" parent having a "winged" descendent. At each step
the parent has almost everything the descendent has. A winged
individual where no ancestor has a wing or anything close to a wing is
not evolution.
Gils where no parent ever had gills.
Lungs where no parent ever had lungs. Eyes where no parent ever had eyes.
You get the idea. It's evidence of this drastic difference between a parent,
and an offspring many generations down the line that does not exist.
Do you know of the wide range of eyes that exist today? We have a
clear sequence from light sensitive spots to spots in a pit (allowing
direction detecting) to a liquid filled pit (allowing concentration of
life) to various forms of control over the shape (allowing focus). All
of these exist today, where is the problem in having genetic changes
from one to the other (over thousands of generations)?
We have evidence that dogs made different looking dogs many generations down
the line. Whales made different looking whales many generations down the
line.
There are many species of whales and lots of whale fossils. I know I
have already given you links to some discussion of that, do you want
to actually discuss whales?
Giraffes made different looking giraffes many generations down the
line. There's no evidence that land walking animals with no wings made
animals with wings that fly many generations down the line. There's no
evidence that land walking animals with no feathers made animals with
feathers many generations down the line.
Sure there is:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_birds
This is the evidence that does not
exist, and that's a minute part of it. The only evidence you've shown was
that of what we already are fully aware of: offspring, unless they're
identical twins, look cosmetically different from each other and their
parents in minor ways. You've no proof this sort of cosmetic differences
suddenly leads to growing feathers for the first time in that species
existence, and so on.
You may believe this is a logical extension of micro-evolution, but until
you provide such specific evidence (which no one has yet to find), it's not
even science to consider it true, as it's not observable, testable, or
verifiable.
I'll ask again: what would this evidence you demand actually look
like? I show you small steps and you reject those, I deny that the
large steps occurred, so I have no idea what you actually think we
would see if evolution were correct.
But each parent
is almost exactly the same as the direct descendent. What you describe
seems much more like creationism, or at least some form of design,
where the outside entity replaces one set of genes with another.
Micro steps where the change is merely cosmetic: micro-evolution.
Can you give me a definition of "cosmetic" changes? Are changes in
bone length and density cosmetic?
Micro-steps where the change is turning into drastically new functionality
(like the beginnings of wings, or gills, when no parent ever had wings or
gills, as just one example) is something entirely different:
macro-evolution.
What would the *beginning* of wings look like?
You don't know?
No, I am asking *you* to tell me what *you* think we would see. I know
what it would look like, I have seen various fossils of them. I really
am not asking you to teach me biology, I ask you to think out your
objections.
I know why I don't know, because it's not what ever
happened.
SFW? I am asking you what it *would* look like if it existed. What do
you think the evidence would look like if evolution occurred? You want
me to show you the "beginning" of a wing, what do you think that would
look like?
[snip]
Is some extra skin
between toes or between legs and the body the *beginning* of wings?
Somehow you failed to answer this simple question.
[snip]
No, it does not. What would the *beginning* of some feature look like?
Would you like to see the fossil sequence showing the change in
functionality of the jaw bones to ear bones? We don't have every
single step, but we have lots.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Aug 2007 10:26:10 PM |
|
|
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:uag3c3hi4vlohuqd91d3n0dh3ahhffc13j@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:40:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<SC8wi.426320$p47.370402@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11007@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow
you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of
micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Actually, I do.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences.
At some point, an offspring has to have _some_ sign of the beginnings of a
feature that no parent ever had.
Do you see that you change your standard with each request? Here you
ask for a small change, but when I show you evidence of such small
changes you ask for evidence of great big changes.
I ask for small changes that are new features unlike anything a parent ever
had. The beginning stages that eventually, according to you, end up becoming
wings in some future generation for example. You claim it's possible but
show no evidence of this yet. Claiming it's true, but having nothing
observable, testable or verifiable is not science. Something you seem to
want to refuse to admit.
You admit this as you say there are tiny
changes over generations, not a drastic change at one birth.
I don't "admit" it, I has said it right out. We have this evidence.
If you do, you have yet to show it. The "evidence" you've presented in
previous posts have all been debunked, or shown to be merely
micro-evolution: cosmetic changes where the creature is pretty much still
the same creature. Not macro-evolution, a species developing, over many
generations, into a brand new species with drastically different
functionality.
And we have long chains of such changes. You want evidence of some
great big change and get distressed when I point out that all of the
steps are small.
I just got done indicating in the very post you responded to that the
changes are small. You can't seem to properly read what is written and start
making things up, then react to these things you make up based on your own
misunderstandings. It's clearly impossible to have a discussion with you on
this, as you can't even properly understand the responses you seem to barely
comprehend.
Fact is you have no evidence of these morphing evolutions over generations.
Only guesses and fantasy scenarios as to why you think it might happen, as
you tried to offer as evidence in previous posts.
Big radical changes are creationist, not
evolutionary.
And this is the
point where you go off in a direction you have no evidence of. Show
evidence
of any species that over generations evolved into some completely new
species with drastically different functionality.
How about the evidence of the change in jaw bones in the mammal line
to ear bones?
Changes to a jaw? Micro-evolution. I don't even need to look at it. Show
evidence of a creature becoming something drastically different over however
many generations. It's this that you continue to have no evidence of
whatsoever. But every time I ask, you keep trying to bring up what I'm not
asking for, what doesn't support the drastic, over generations morphing you
claim is true that I keep asking evidence for that you never provide.
It's these intermediate forms of these drastic morphing over generations
from one species to a brand new one that should be utterly abundant that you
have not even one example of.
You're free to have an opinion, but science is something observable,
verifiable and testable, of which your conjured scenarios are none of these
things.
It's just like a guy a billion years from now (assuming the Earth sustains
life that long) that digs up a wheel. Then digs up a bicycle, then a
tri-cycle, then a wagon, then a primitive car, then a sports car, and
because they look alike, have similarities and additional functionality,
they draw the brilliant conclusion that they evolved from each other,
whatever they were. Fact is they have no evidence of this, yet feel it's
evidence because it "makes sense" to them. Fact is that person has nothing
observable, testable, verifiable, just a guess. That's not science. Welcome
to the equally lacking "science" of morphing evolution.
We clearly disagree. But one fact is you haven't presented a single fact,
just speculation like the hypothetical guy who found parts of different
things that looked alike. But just thought I'd check if you had any facts.
You don't, just the same speculations turned into the lie that it's science
when it's anything but science in this case (of evolution).
Take care.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=527675D9-E7F2-99DF-3265F1A19B72042F
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/march/news_11207.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Science/Tiny-jawbone-is-a-prehistoric-earsplitting-wonder/2005/02/11/1108061872211.html
Jaw to ear seems rather drastic. We can then look at the developmental
evidence where the homologous structures in reptiles become jaw bones
while in mammals become ear bones (and in fish become gills).
The most blatant example:
wings where no parent ever had wings.
As I keep saying, this is not how evolution works. A "no wing" parent
has a "no wing with a change" descendent. Many generations later those
changes build up to a "sort of wing" parent having a descendent with
"sort of wings plus a change" and then many generations later we get
an "almost a wing" parent having a "winged" descendent. At each step
the parent has almost everything the descendent has. A winged
individual where no ancestor has a wing or anything close to a wing is
not evolution.
Gils where no parent ever had gills.
Lungs where no parent ever had lungs. Eyes where no parent ever had eyes.
You get the idea. It's evidence of this drastic difference between a
parent,
and an offspring many generations down the line that does not exist.
Do you know of the wide range of eyes that exist today? We have a
clear sequence from light sensitive spots to spots in a pit (allowing
direction detecting) to a liquid filled pit (allowing concentration of
life) to various forms of control over the shape (allowing focus). All
of these exist today, where is the problem in having genetic changes
from one to the other (over thousands of generations)?
We have evidence that dogs made different looking dogs many generations
down
the line. Whales made different looking whales many generations down the
line.
There are many species of whales and lots of whale fossils. I know I
have already given you links to some discussion of that, do you want
to actually discuss whales?
Giraffes made different looking giraffes many generations down the
line. There's no evidence that land walking animals with no wings made
animals with wings that fly many generations down the line. There's no
evidence that land walking animals with no feathers made animals with
feathers many generations down the line.
Sure there is:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_birds
This is the evidence that does not
exist, and that's a minute part of it. The only evidence you've shown was
that of what we already are fully aware of: offspring, unless they're
identical twins, look cosmetically different from each other and their
parents in minor ways. You've no proof this sort of cosmetic differences
suddenly leads to growing feathers for the first time in that species
existence, and so on.
You may believe this is a logical extension of micro-evolution, but until
you provide such specific evidence (which no one has yet to find), it's
not
even science to consider it true, as it's not observable, testable, or
verifiable.
I'll ask again: what would this evidence you demand actually look
like? I show you small steps and you reject those, I deny that the
large steps occurred, so I have no idea what you actually think we
would see if evolution were correct.
But each parent
is almost exactly the same as the direct descendent. What you describe
seems much more like creationism, or at least some form of design,
where the outside entity replaces one set of genes with another.
Micro steps where the change is merely cosmetic: micro-evolution.
Can you give me a definition of "cosmetic" changes? Are changes in
bone length and density cosmetic?
Micro-steps where the change is turning into drastically new
functionality
(like the beginnings of wings, or gills, when no parent ever had wings
or
gills, as just one example) is something entirely different:
macro-evolution.
What would the *beginning* of wings look like?
You don't know?
No, I am asking *you* to tell me what *you* think we would see. I know
what it would look like, I have seen various fossils of them. I really
am not asking you to teach me biology, I ask you to think out your
objections.
I know why I don't know, because it's not what ever
happened.
SFW? I am asking you what it *would* look like if it existed. What do
you think the evidence would look like if evolution occurred? You want
me to show you the "beginning" of a wing, what do you think that would
look like?
[snip]
Is some extra skin
between toes or between legs and the body the *beginning* of wings?
Somehow you failed to answer this simple question.
[snip]
No, it does not. What would the *beginning* of some feature look like?
Would you like to see the fossil sequence showing the change in
functionality of the jaw bones to ear bones? We don't have every
single step, but we have lots.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
29 Aug 2007 08:07:51 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:26:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in <mH5Bi.1169$2p5.353@trndny05> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:uag3c3hi4vlohuqd91d3n0dh3ahhffc13j@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:40:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<SC8wi.426320$p47.370402@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11007@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow
you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of
micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Actually, I do.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences.
At some point, an offspring has to have _some_ sign of the beginnings of a
feature that no parent ever had.
Do you see that you change your standard with each request? Here you
ask for a small change, but when I show you evidence of such small
changes you ask for evidence of great big changes.
I ask for small changes that are new features unlike anything a parent ever
had.
And *that* is not evolution. In evolution the small changes are just
that, changes. They are very much like the features of the parent.
Over many generations these changes accumulate.
The beginning stages that eventually, according to you, end up becoming
wings in some future generation for example.
But the beginning stages are like the first stage. You really need to
think this through a bit more.
You claim it's possible but
show no evidence of this yet. Claiming it's true, but having nothing
observable, testable or verifiable is not science. Something you seem to
want to refuse to admit.
You have a bizarre notion of evolution, one unlike the scientific
view, so it is not surprising that no one has evidence to meet your
request. We only have evidence for the way the world is, not the way
it isn't.
You admit this as you say there are tiny
changes over generations, not a drastic change at one birth.
I don't "admit" it, I has said it right out. We have this evidence.
If you do, you have yet to show it. The "evidence" you've presented in
previous posts have all been debunked,
Denial is not debunking.
or shown to be merely
micro-evolution:
All changes from one generation to the next are small, micro even. It
is only over many generations that they accumulate to big changes. But
you keep asking for evidence of a big change in one generation.
cosmetic changes where the creature is pretty much still
the same creature.
Not necessarily cosmetic, but yes pretty much the same type of
organism. That is how evolution works.
Not macro-evolution, a species developing, over many
generations, into a brand new species with drastically different
functionality.
But you refuse to look at evidence over time.
And we have long chains of such changes. You want evidence of some
great big change and get distressed when I point out that all of the
steps are small.
I just got done indicating in the very post you responded to that the
changes are small.
I know. Each change is small, but small changes add up.
You can't seem to properly read what is written and start
making things up, then react to these things you make up based on your own
misunderstandings. It's clearly impossible to have a discussion with you on
this, as you can't even properly understand the responses you seem to barely
comprehend.
Whatever. The way evolution works is that there small, micro even,
changes from generation to generation. Over many generations these add
up to big changes. Over long periods of time this produces new uses
for old features. We have evidence of small changes over time, we have
evidence of big changes over long periods of time. But we don't have
evidence of big changes over small periods of time and that is what
you keep asking for.
Fact is you have no evidence of these morphing evolutions over generations.
Only guesses and fantasy scenarios as to why you think it might happen, as
you tried to offer as evidence in previous posts.
Big radical changes are creationist, not
evolutionary.
And this is the
point where you go off in a direction you have no evidence of. Show
evidence
of any species that over generations evolved into some completely new
species with drastically different functionality.
How about the evidence of the change in jaw bones in the mammal line
to ear bones?
Changes to a jaw? Micro-evolution. I don't even need to look at it. Show
evidence of a creature becoming something drastically different over however
many generations.
The bones in your ear derive from the same ancestral features that
constitute the reptile jaw. If that is a small change then I don't
know if there are any big changes at all.
It's this that you continue to have no evidence of
whatsoever. But every time I ask, you keep trying to bring up what I'm not
asking for, what doesn't support the drastic, over generations morphing you
claim is true that I keep asking evidence for that you never provide.
It's these intermediate forms of these drastic morphing over generations
from one species to a brand new one that should be utterly abundant that you
have not even one example of.
Because you want to see the "drastic morphing" in one step. I get the
feeling from you and other creationists that you actually expect the
bones themselves to be changing as you watch them.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Aug 2007 08:08:07 PM |
|
|
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bhrad3hu3470r2ntcjgtjn0n43s0pgmddt@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:26:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in <mH5Bi.1169$2p5.353@trndny05> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:uag3c3hi4vlohuqd91d3n0dh3ahhffc13j@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:40:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<SC8wi.426320$p47.370402@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11007@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow
you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of
micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need
for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that
species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Actually, I do.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences.
At some point, an offspring has to have _some_ sign of the beginnings of
a
feature that no parent ever had.
Do you see that you change your standard with each request? Here you
ask for a small change, but when I show you evidence of such small
changes you ask for evidence of great big changes.
I ask for small changes that are new features unlike anything a parent
ever
had.
And *that* is not evolution. In evolution the small changes are just
that, changes. They are very much like the features of the parent.
Over many generations these changes accumulate.
Changing the wording does not change the facts. If species A did not have
wings, and species B that is claimed it morphed into over generations does,
at some point wings had to start developing on species A (a species that
_never_ had wings, mind you), even if in the most minute ways. And at that
point it is now doing something we have no evidence of: starting to have a
new miraculous functional feature no parent ever had. To try change the
wording "signs of wings but it's just a small change, and it's accumulating,
but it's still the same creature" is just a play on words. The moment it
shows any signs of this new feature of wings, it is no longer what it was
before. The moment a dog shows signs of wings (even if they won't fully
develop until 5,000,000 generations down the line), it's still no longer a
dog, but rather a miracle dog that's doing the impossible, something
previously unobservable, unverifiable, untestable; a dog that just performed
the most incredible miracle we've ever seen: beginning to grow wings, even
in the most minute way, and passing that miraculous event onto every one of
it's children, who for some miraculous reason continue to grow this brand
new feature even more solidly. It's still a feature that no other parent
ever had, and it makes that creature a miraculous new creature, no longer
truly a dog, but perhaps now a bird-dog (that can't fly yet but someday many
generations down the line it will).
And conclusively enough, it is this kind of evidence that does not exist at
all, and yet should be amazingly abundant millions of times over, since
according to the religion of evolution it had to have happened for the
creation of every single species in existence.
The beginning stages that eventually, according to you, end up becoming
wings in some future generation for example.
But the beginning stages are like the first stage. You really need to
think this through a bit more.
You claim it's possible but
show no evidence of this yet. Claiming it's true, but having nothing
observable, testable or verifiable is not science. Something you seem to
want to refuse to admit.
You have a bizarre notion of evolution, one unlike the scientific
view, so it is not surprising that no one has evidence to meet your
request. We only have evidence for the way the world is, not the way
it isn't.
You admit this as you say there are tiny
changes over generations, not a drastic change at one birth.
I don't "admit" it, I has said it right out. We have this evidence.
If you do, you have yet to show it. The "evidence" you've presented in
previous posts have all been debunked,
Denial is not debunking.
or shown to be merely
micro-evolution:
All changes from one generation to the next are small, micro even. It
is only over many generations that they accumulate to big changes. But
you keep asking for evidence of a big change in one generation.
cosmetic changes where the creature is pretty much still
the same creature.
Not necessarily cosmetic, but yes pretty much the same type of
organism. That is how evolution works.
Not macro-evolution, a species developing, over many
generations, into a brand new species with drastically different
functionality.
But you refuse to look at evidence over time.
And we have long chains of such changes. You want evidence of some
great big change and get distressed when I point out that all of the
steps are small.
I just got done indicating in the very post you responded to that the
changes are small.
I know. Each change is small, but small changes add up.
You can't seem to properly read what is written and start
making things up, then react to these things you make up based on your own
misunderstandings. It's clearly impossible to have a discussion with you
on
this, as you can't even properly understand the responses you seem to
barely
comprehend.
Whatever. The way evolution works is that there small, micro even,
changes from generation to generation. Over many generations these add
up to big changes. Over long periods of time this produces new uses
for old features. We have evidence of small changes over time, we have
evidence of big changes over long periods of time. But we don't have
evidence of big changes over small periods of time and that is what
you keep asking for.
Fact is you have no evidence of these morphing evolutions over
generations.
Only guesses and fantasy scenarios as to why you think it might happen, as
you tried to offer as evidence in previous posts.
Big radical changes are creationist, not
evolutionary.
And this is the
point where you go off in a direction you have no evidence of. Show
evidence
of any species that over generations evolved into some completely new
species with drastically different functionality.
How about the evidence of the change in jaw bones in the mammal line
to ear bones?
Changes to a jaw? Micro-evolution. I don't even need to look at it. Show
evidence of a creature becoming something drastically different over
however
many generations.
The bones in your ear derive from the same ancestral features that
constitute the reptile jaw. If that is a small change then I don't
know if there are any big changes at all.
It's this that you continue to have no evidence of
whatsoever. But every time I ask, you keep trying to bring up what I'm not
asking for, what doesn't support the drastic, over generations morphing
you
claim is true that I keep asking evidence for that you never provide.
It's these intermediate forms of these drastic morphing over generations
from one species to a brand new one that should be utterly abundant that
you
have not even one example of.
Because you want to see the "drastic morphing" in one step. I get the
feeling from you and other creationists that you actually expect the
bones themselves to be changing as you watch them.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
31 Aug 2007 03:23:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:08:07 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in <XRJBi.8144$J65.5206@trndny08> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:bhrad3hu3470r2ntcjgtjn0n43s0pgmddt@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:26:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in <mH5Bi.1169$2p5.353@trndny05> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:uag3c3hi4vlohuqd91d3n0dh3ahhffc13j@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:40:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<SC8wi.426320$p47.370402@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11007@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
message news:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17737@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
message news:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow
you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of
micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need
for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that
species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Actually, I do.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences.
At some point, an offspring has to have _some_ sign of the beginnings of
a
feature that no parent ever had.
Do you see that you change your standard with each request? Here you
ask for a small change, but when I show you evidence of such small
changes you ask for evidence of great big changes.
I ask for small changes that are new features unlike anything a parent
ever
had.
And *that* is not evolution. In evolution the small changes are just
that, changes. They are very much like the features of the parent.
Over many generations these changes accumulate.
Changing the wording does not change the facts. If species A did not have
wings, and species B that is claimed it morphed into over generations does,
at some point wings had to start developing on species A (a species that
_never_ had wings, mind you), even if in the most minute ways.
That is not quite correct. Species are always changing and features
come from other features, so talking about a start to wings is not all
that easy. Even if we don't look at the origin of legs, which evolve
into wings, the first step is going to be small (as is the second and
the rest of the thousands).
And at that
point it is now doing something we have no evidence of: starting to have a
new miraculous functional feature no parent ever had.
But we do have lots of evidence for intermediary points. Not the first
perhaps, but several places along the way. This refers to several of
those fossils: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html
Of course fossils are only one of several distinct lines of evidence
for bird evolution. Comparative morphology clearly shows that birds
are more closely related to reptiles than either are to mammals, for
example.
To try change the
wording
It was not the wording I objected to, it was your ideas.
"signs of wings but it's just a small change, and it's accumulating,
but it's still the same creature" is just a play on words.
No, it is not. It is a branching lineage, not some sudden new feature
dropped in.
The moment it
shows any signs of this new feature of wings, it is no longer what it was
before.
Well, then that is *each* generation. This is not a linguistics issue,
this is a conceptual problem you have. Evolution happens in every
generation. The first step along the way might have been slightly
different scales (feathers seem to have developed before
wings/flight). The first several steps would not have looked all that
different, but the 100th might have looked different from the first.
This notion of change, rather than sudden appearance, is difficult for
lots of people to grasp.
The moment a dog shows signs of wings (even if they won't fully
develop until 5,000,000 generations down the line), it's still no longer a
dog, but rather a miracle dog that's doing the impossible, something
previously unobservable, unverifiable, untestable; a dog that just performed
the most incredible miracle we've ever seen: beginning to grow wings,
The first step in wings in a mammals was likely a bit more skin
between the front legs and the body. How does that make it a "miracle"
animal? This is something you seem to not get: the first step is not a
miracle step, it is not a big change, it is a tiny little difference.
It is one that likely no one would notice at all. Nor the second. Nor
the 10th.
even
in the most minute way, and passing that miraculous event onto every one of
it's children, who for some miraculous reason continue to grow this brand
new feature even more solidly.
Not miraculous, just standard genetics and, sometimes, a bit of
selection. These are *observed* phenomena not miracles.
It's still a feature that no other parent
ever had,
You have 3-4 mutations you did not inherent from either parent. They
might be silent, they might produce some "feature" that no parent had.
and it makes that creature a miraculous new creature, no longer
truly a dog, but perhaps now a bird-dog (that can't fly yet but someday many
generations down the line it will).
You continually argue against *creationism*, not against evolution. It
is *creationism* that bothers you. Your presentation of evolution has
little to do with the scientific one.
And conclusively enough, it is this kind of evidence that does not exist at
all, and yet should be amazingly abundant millions of times over, since
according to the religion of evolution it had to have happened for the
creation of every single species in existence.
I agree: no evidence exists to support your ideas of evolution, but
your ideas of evolution are wrong.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
14 Sep 2007 05:02:55 AM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 4:23 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:08:07 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in <XRJBi.8144$J65.5206@trndny08> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:bhrad3hu3470r2ntcjgtjn0n43s0pgmddt@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:26:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in <mH5Bi.1169$2p5.353@trndny05> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:uag3c3hi4vlohuqd91d3n0dh3ahhffc13j@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:40:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in
<SC8wi.426320$p47.370...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
HI Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:52c1c35846iltv1gkrhrpdboqjdu7kij82@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:21:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in
<mmOvi.32232$ax1.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in
messagenews:so6qb3h5f89riaudnmpq46cfov024g8tc4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:54:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in
<5F8vi.28917$ax1.17...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in
messagenews:a40qb3h27qq7j52tn9c2imin005p4bt79j@4ax.com...
[snip]
How odd. I show you references to hundreds of fossils and somehow
you
don't seem to remember that they exist.
Let's remind you they were examples of micro-evolution of
micro-organisms
producing .. micro-organisms. A desperate grab at a desperate need
for
evidence that is anything but that.
Sorry, but that is how evolution works, "micro" steps between
generations, adding up over long periods of time to "macro" changes.
Micro steps of a _drastically new feature that no parent of that
species
in
the past ever had before_ is the critical difference between micro and
macro
evolution.
No, that is the critical difference between evolution and creationism.
You still don't get it.
Actually, I do.
Evolution is about small step-wise genetic changes that, over many
generations, lead to large morphological differences.
At some point, an offspring has to have _some_ sign of the beginnings of
a
feature that no parent ever had.
Do you see that you change your standard with each request? Here you
ask for a small change, but when I show you evidence of such small
changes you ask for evidence of great big changes.
I ask for small changes that are new features unlike anything a parent
ever
had.
And *that* is not evolution. In evolution the small changes are just
that, changes. They are very much like the features of the parent.
Over many generations these changes accumulate.
Changing the wording does not change the facts. If species A did not have
wings, and species B that is claimed it morphed into over generations does,
at some point wings had to start developing on species A (a species that
_never_ had wings, mind you), even if in the most minute ways.
That is not quite correct. Species are always changing and features
come from other features, so talking about a start to wings is not all
that easy. Even if we don't look at the origin of legs, which evolve
into wings, the first step is going to be small (as is the second and
the rest of the thousands).
And at that
point it is now doing something we have no evidence of: starting to have a
new miraculous functional feature no parent ever had.
But we do have lots of evidence for intermediary points. Not the first
perhaps, but several places along the way. This refers to several of
those fossils:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html
Of course fossils are only one of several distinct lines of evidence
for bird evolution. Comparative morphology clearly shows that birds
are more closely related to reptiles than either are to mammals, for
example.
To try change the
wording
It was not the wording I objected to, it was your ideas.
"signs of wings but it's just a small change, and it's accumulating,
but it's still the same creature" is just a play on words.
No, it is not. It is a branching lineage, not some sudden new feature
dropped in.
The moment it
shows any signs of this new feature of wings, it is no longer what it was
before.
Well, then that is *each* generation. This is not a linguistics issue,
this is a conceptual problem you have. Evolution happens in every
generation. The first step along the way might have been slightly
different scales (feathers seem to have developed before
wings/flight). The first several steps would not have looked all that
different, but the 100th might have looked different from the first.
This notion of change, rather than sudden appearance, is difficult for
lots of people to grasp.
The moment a dog shows signs of wings (even if they won't fully
develop until 5,000,000 generations down the line), it's still no longer a
dog, but rather a miracle dog that's doing the impossible, something
previously unobservable, unverifiable, untestable; a dog that just performed
the most incredible miracle we've ever seen: beginning to grow wings,
The first step in wings in a mammals was likely a bit more skin
between the front legs and the body. How does that make it a "miracle"
animal? This is something you seem to not get: the first step is not a
miracle step, it is not a big change, it is a tiny little difference.
It is one that likely no one would notice at all. Nor the second. Nor
the 10th.
even
in the most minute way, and passing that miraculous event onto every one of
it's children, who for some miraculous reason continue to grow this brand
new feature even more solidly.
Not miraculous, just standard genetics and, sometimes, a bit of
selection. These are *observed* phenomena not miracles.
It's still a feature that no other parent
ever had,
You have 3-4 mutations you did not inherent from either parent. They
might be silent, they might produce some "feature" that no parent had.
and it makes that creature a miraculous new creature, no longer
truly a dog, but perhaps now a bird-dog (that can't fly yet but someday many
generations down the line it will).
You continually argue against *creationism*, not against evolution. It
is *creationism* that bothers you. Your presentation of evolution has
little to do with the scientific one.
And conclusively enough, it is this kind of evidence that does not exist at
all, and yet should be amazingly abundant millions of times over, since
according to the religion of evolution it had to have happened for the
creation of every single species in existence.
I agree: no evidence exists to support your ideas of evolution, but
your ideas of evolution are wrong.
So you claim. And yet you still show no evidence of the mechanism
unique to evolution (and continue to show you seem to not understand
what that means): how a species changes from one species to a
drastically different one. You still have no evidence of any species
ever becoming a completely new, drastically different species. Just a
fossil record that shows that species could have also easily been
created by design, given all the complex similarities. All the
evidence you think you have unique to evolution is really evidence
that points just as much to creation by design. In the end, uniquely
applying to evolution you have nothing observable, verifiable or
testable.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
14 Sep 2007 08:41:23 PM |
|
|
On Sep 14, 6:02 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 4:23 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:08:07 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> in <XRJBi.8144$J65.5206@trndny08> wrote:
Hi Matt,
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
messagenews:bhrad3hu3470r2ntcjgtjn0n43s0pgmddt@4ax.com...
< | | | | | | | | | |
