"the general theory of evolution" or neo-darwinian theory is a faith based position

[Phi for All]

i dont know what else to say.....if no one can cite anything then the title of my post is accurate....comment away please.

!

Moderator Note

sammy7, you have been given citations which you are choosing to ignore. This is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. Please refute the arguments given or acknowledge their points, but ignoring them and claiming they don't exist will not be tolerated.

 

Don't derail the thread by commenting on this warning; please use the time to address the points others have made.

[immortal]

no if you wont cite it then its not evidence, N-D-T is making the claim, its up to its proponents (if you are) to cite it.... if you do find it and cite it i would be happy to read it.... (NOT JUST AN OVERVIEW)

 

 

http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcbc245/MCBC245PDFs/Gellon.pdf

 

okay sammy7, here it is, I have found it for you in google scholar, its not a big thing you know.

[Moontanman]

no if you wont cite it then its not evidence, N-D-T is making the claim, its up to its proponents (if you are) to cite it.... if you do find it and cite it i would be happy to read it.... (NOT JUST AN OVERVIEW)

 

 

here is the telomere telomere paper.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf

 

 

I'd like for you to elaborate on how this paper in anyway supports your position?

 

 

 

unfortunately thats not how the scientific heirarchy seems to operate...(JUST MY OPINION)

 

 

well you know what opinions are like...

[sammy7]

ok i will review all these literatures and comment, i will not reply to posts like moontan man or the ones below just using analogies/metaphors... give me some time i will review the literatures and post...

[Moontanman]

ok i will review all these literatures and comment, i will not reply to posts like moontan man or the ones below just using analogies/metaphors... give me some time i will review the literatures and post...

 

 

sammy7 I see no reason to give you more links to ignore...

[Ophiolite]

ok i will review all these literatures and comment, i will not reply to posts like moontan man or the ones below just using analogies/metaphors... give me some time i will review the literatures and post...

I have used the analogy to help you understand how untenable and ultimately ignorant your position is. Macro evolution is a consequence of micro evolution. The large differences between a giraffe, or a gnu, or a Christian fundamentalist are the result of many, many small changes over millions of years. Since those large changes take more time than a human lifespan, then we can only witness the small changes.

 

That's not an analogy. That's the way it is. That's what you choose to deny through a process that has the appearance of self deception, seriously inadequate educational background, or lack of logical thinking processes.

 

So if you won't address the analogy designed to help you, at least address the reality, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.

 

Edited for minor typos in last sentence

Edited May 19, 2012 by Ophiolite

[the asinine cretin]

Yes... Let the butthurt flow through you.

[sammy7]

this is for immortal and ringer- i am going to bed soon, im at page 5 of the hox literature, it is quite long and will take a few more hours etc etc... i will read your literature ringer after i consume this one and discuss its points/or lack thereof with immortal

 

ok about the telomere telomere literature, please both read it if you will immortal and ringer (click the link and the pdf should pop up, you can save it). i will give one example were they assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observation/effect today. it happens at least once more...( i will let you guys see if you can find where/how)

 

"The data we present here

demonstrate that a telomere-to-telomere fusion of ancestral

chromosomes occurred, leaving a pathognomonic relic at"

 

okay please notice the word "occurred" again here we see the assigning an unobserved cause in the past to this present day effect. again if this logic is used i can insert any insane unobserved story i want into being the cause and say thats what accounts for any observation i can make today...do you understand this? or am i on my own in this line of thinking lol? i will await your responses on this (and it does happen at least once more in the literature) and discuss it more if you want, then i will probably go to bed and continue the hox literature when i wake up...

[Moontanman]

this is for immortal and ringer- i am going to bed soon, im at page 5 of the hox literature, it is quite long and will take a few more hours etc etc... i will read your literature ringer after i consume this one and discuss its points/or lack thereof with immortal

 

ok about the telomere telomere literature, please both read it if you will immortal and ringer (click the link and the pdf should pop up, you can save it). i will give one example were they assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observation/effect today. it happens at least once more...( i will let you guys see if you can find where/how)

 

"The data we present here

demonstrate that a telomere-to-telomere fusion of ancestral

chromosomes occurred, leaving a pathognomonic relic at"

 

okay please notice the word "occurred" again here we see the assigning an unobserved cause in the past to this present day effect. again if this logic is used i can insert any insane unobserved story i want into being the cause and say thats what accounts for any observation i can make today...do you understand this? or am i on my own in this line of thinking lol? i will await your responses on this (and it does happen at least once more in the literature) and discuss it more if you want, then i will probably go to bed and continue the hox literature when i wake up...

 

 

You do realize this is not unique to humans and has been seen in other animals?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

sammy7, you have three choices here.

1. I close this thread

2. I close your other thread that I split for you to discuss this exact same question: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66513-evolution-creation/

3. I merge them both.

Pick one and in future, don't open multiple threads on the one topic.

[sammy7]

!

Moderator Note

sammy7, you have three choices here.

 

1. I close this thread

 

2. I close your other thread that I split for you to discuss this exact same question: http://www.sciencefo...ution-creation/

 

3. I merge them both.

 

Pick one and in future, don't open multiple threads on the one topic.

 

 

 

sure sorry then just delete the other one then if thats alright?

 

hay ringer immortal assinine cretina moontana man etc i have reviewed the hox literature

 

immortal if you will could you please write in a few sentences what you feel/believe/understand etc that literature to "show" if you will?

 

then based on what you feel it "shows" could you please start running me through it step by step (yes this may be an arduous process i know) like based on whatever you feel it "shows" point me to say eg. "page 5 top left column' or "page 2 bottom left column" etc etc if you understand what im saying?

 

ok thanks

 

bye

[immortal]

sure sorry then just delete the other one then if thats alright?

 

hay ringer immortal assinine cretina moontana man etc i have reviewed the hox literature

 

immortal if you will could you please write in a few sentences what you feel/believe/understand etc that literature to "show" if you will?

 

then based on what you feel it "shows" could you please start running me through it step by step (yes this may be an arduous process i know) like based on whatever you feel it "shows" point me to say eg. "page 5 top left column' or "page 2 bottom left column" etc etc if you understand what im saying?

 

ok thanks

 

bye

 

 

The onus is on you to show where evolutionary biologists have made a trend of making models of New synthesis of darwinian theory of evolution based purely on faith from the literature which I cited to you. Its your thread and you made that claim.

[sammy7]

haha lol umm well i read the literature and i loosely understand where someone would like to go with it.... but the obv question is....when hox genes get activated/deactivated whatever and a leg or wing (even an additional one) grows somewhere that in the wild? type it wouldnt....well the question is....is it functional? and if the gene for if its a leg or if its a wing was already existing.....well then that gene didnt just magically appear...it was already existing...and this hox mutation or switching on/off that gene just caused an additional formation of something that the blueprints were already available for..then....well i dont know... i need an evolutionists point of view.......because i guess an additional wing or whatever the question is..is it functional? like sure it might have an extra set of wings or whatever but do they work? or is it an actual hindrance to whatever it is? and a thought i just had then is there is a limit to all of this...ie the gene(s) were already existing in the first place right? and these hox switches or whatever are just messing with the output number of the original gene? is this a fair comment? i dont know...comment away please...also i found the ecoli literature(lenskis) or just one piece of it anyway but havnt read it yet so if you want i will post it...

[Phi for All]

sure sorry then just delete the other one then if thats alright?

I hope you're not trying to dodge important questions brought up in that other thread. I'm sure that isn't the case, so before it gets deleted, I'll grab one exchange from there and ask again for your reply:

 

im surpised at how well evolutionists know their bible lol (if you are one i presume?).

Knowing both sides of an argument is the intellectually honest thing to do.

 

i presume your belief of origins is whats commonly referred to as "the big bang" or "stellarnucleosynthesis" or something? id be interested to hear your personal beliefs.

I don't "believe" in the Big Bang Theory. After everything I've read, BBT has the most evidence to support it, and it's actively and constantly being studied and refined, so I trust it to be the best explanation, unless something better supported comes along.

 

genesis 1 is the literal six days in the order that it is alleged to have happened (which i believe obv)

 

genesis 2 appears to be a recap of the events of creation week in seemingly no apparent order....

The order of creation only differs by one point, so "no apparent order" is inaccurate (especially for someone claiming an inerrant Bible). And the question of whether man and woman were created together or it was man first, woman second should at least show you that the two Genesis versions are subject to interpretation, which means you can't say one is literal and the other isn't.

 

As for a literal six day creation, Genesis 2:17 says:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Obviously, Adam and Eve did NOT die the day they ate the fruit of the tree. This must mean that "day" (yom in the original Hebrew) has multiple interpretations, such as during daylight, 24-hours, or an indeterminate time like "back in the day". Could it not be that six days could be billions of years to your god? Wouldn't it have been easier to write a six day creation as an explanation to the iron age Hebrews of the time, as opposed to what the geological record shows us really happened?

[sammy7]

please see my new thread in religion entitled "every human being on the planet is religous"

 

 

The order of creation only differs by one point, so "no apparent order" is inaccurate (especially for someone claiming an inerrant Bible). And the question of whether man and woman were created together or it was man first, woman second should at least show you that the two Genesis versions are subject to interpretation, which means you can't say one is literal and the other isn't.

 

well if you want to believe it/interpret it in your own way ok....to each his own? if your asking if i take it literally the answer is "yes" i will review it again and see how i go...

 

As for a literal six day creation, Genesis 2:17 says:

 

Obviously, Adam and Eve did NOT die the day they ate the fruit of the tree. This must mean that "day" (yom in the original Hebrew) has multiple interpretations, such as during daylight, 24-hours, or an indeterminate time like "back in the day". Could it not be that six days could be billions of years to your god? Wouldn't it have been easier to write a six day creation as an explanation to the iron age Hebrews of the time, as opposed to what the geological record shows us really happened?

 

um i dont know lol? if someone wants to put x number of years or whatever in there to each his own? i didnt write it either no offense.....if your asking do i believe the bible over an imagined geologic time column used to date index fossils which are used to date the geologic time column which they then pick which radiometric dating method they use to get the target range they already have in mind the answer is "yes"

[Ringer]

haha lol umm well i read the literature and i loosely understand where someone would like to go with it.... but the obv question is....when hox genes get activated/deactivated whatever and a leg or wing (even an additional one) grows somewhere that in the wild? type it wouldnt....well the question is....is it functional? and if the gene for if its a leg or if its a wing was already existing.....well then that gene didnt just magically appear...it was already existing...and this hox mutation or switching on/off that gene just caused an additional formation of something that the blueprints were already available for..then....well i dont know... i need an evolutionists point of view.......because i guess an additional wing or whatever the question is..is it functional? like sure it might have an extra set of wings or whatever but do they work? or is it an actual hindrance to whatever it is? and a thought i just had then is there is a limit to all of this...ie the gene(s) were already existing in the first place right? and these hox switches or whatever are just messing with the output number of the original gene? is this a fair comment? i dont know...comment away please...also i found the ecoli literature(lenskis) or just one piece of it anyway but havnt read it yet so if you want i will post it...

 

That's the problem, we have given you vast amounts of information on how these things work and you've ignored it. It seems like you either are purposefully being dishonest about wanting to look at the evidence or you don't understand what you are reading due and are embarrassed to admit it. I hope it's the second one, because if it's the first you are wasting all of our time. If you fall into the first category I would prefer you admit it so I can move on. If you fall into the second category please say what you don't understand, if you are truly willing to learn we are more than happy to help.

[sammy7]

That's the problem, we have given you vast amounts of information on how these things work and you've ignored it. It seems like you either are purposefully being dishonest about wanting to look at the evidence or you don't understand what you are reading due and are embarrassed to admit it. I hope it's the second one, because if it's the first you are wasting all of our time. If you fall into the first category I would prefer you admit it so I can move on. If you fall into the second category please say what you don't understand, if you are truly willing to learn we are more than happy to help.

 

dude i asked him to explain what the bigger picture of it is kinda? i thought he would have a better understanding of it than me? but he didnt want to so i went first... if you have read the literature (have you)? please what is the bigger picture/outline of it then iyo?

[Ringer]

dude i asked him to explain what the bigger picture of it is kinda? i thought he would have a better understanding of it than me? but he didnt want to so i went first... if you have read the literature (have you)? please what is the bigger picture/outline of it then iyo?

 

All you did was give a post hoc story about how it may not be evolution so it can fit a notion that evolution isn't real. That's not science remember.

 

 

It's not my responsibility to explain the paper to you unless you have specific parts you need clarified. It's pretty up front throughout the whole thing.

[doG]

That's the problem, we have given you vast amounts of information on how these things work and you've ignored it. It seems like you either are purposefully being dishonest about wanting to look at the evidence or you don't understand what you are reading due and are embarrassed to admit it....

 

I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING

 

'nuf said!!!

[Phi for All]

please see my new thread in religion entitled "every human being on the planet is religous"

NO. I'm tired of you starting new threads whenever the questions get too tough for you to answer in the old threads. It's a delaying tactic and it's frustrating for people who want you to answer the questions you're asked.

 

And stop advertising your threads, it's off-topic and it derails the current discussions.

 

 

 

well if you want to believe it/interpret it in your own way ok....to each his own? if your asking if i take it literally the answer is "yes" i will review it again and see how i go...

I'm pointing out to you that there are discrepancies and contradictions. You can't take something as literal truth when it says completely different things.

 

um i dont know lol? if someone wants to put x number of years or whatever in there to each his own? i didnt write it either no offense.....if your asking do i believe the bible over an imagined geologic time column used to date index fossils which are used to date the geologic time column which they then pick which radiometric dating method they use to get the target range they already have in mind the answer is "yes"

I'm asking you why you interpret Genesis 1 as saying the Earth was created in a literal six day time period when Genesis 2:17 says Adam and Eve will die on the very DAY (yom) they eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? You don't have many options here. Either God was lying about them dying on that DAY (yom), or God meant DAY (yom) to mean "a specified time or period" (like "back in Abraham's DAY (yom)"). And if God wasn't lying, and meant DAY (yom) to mean "a specified time or period" (like "you won't be immortal anymore and will die within a limited, specified time or period), then couldn't the Genesis 1 creation story have used the word DAY (yom) to mean "a specified time or period"?

 

It's just that one little sticking point that keeps young Earth creationism from agreeing with what scientific evidence supports as the best explanation for an ancient Earth. One interpretation out of three possible for the Hebrew word yom. Why do you insist Genesis could only mean a 24 hour DAY (yom) when there is so much evidence against it?

[sammy7]

i dont know what to say then......unless someone else has actually read it then we cant have a discussion on it.i will try to find some literature from what craig venter did and post it that should be interesting.. (also i will review your speciation one or whatever you posted the other day in the next few days....

 

hay um yes i have read some ummm like literatry analysis of genesis...saying how its not poetic prose or something (like i think its considered narrative prose )but its a specific type of format...umm... if you want the site i will link it for you if you want (i havnt studied writing really but i might now that you mention it) umm yeah and also yom it goes on about how in this type of narrative prose or whatever that read plainly its just a standard day kinda thing...i was kinda the same till a few weeks ago.ie all we hear on the media all the time is "millions and millions" of years etc..so MY OPINION because we get fed that all the time thats why some people read it that way...but imo if someone hadnt been exposed to the media per se like living in a isolated tribe and they read it...well.. it would just be a very standard plain reading kind of....like they wouldnt have the thought of "millions and millions" of years in mind so...i hope that helps? if you want the site i will link it...

[Phi for All]

hay um yes i have read some ummm like literatry analysis of genesis...saying how its not poetic prose or something (like i think its considered narrative prose )but its a specific type of format...umm... if you want the site i will link it for you if you want (i havnt studied writing really but i might now that you mention it) umm yeah and also yom it goes on about how in this type of narrative prose or whatever that read plainly its just a standard day kinda thing...i was kinda the same till a few weeks ago.ie all we hear on the media all the time is "millions and millions" of years etc..so MY OPINION because we get fed that all the time thats why some people read it that way...but imo if someone hadnt been exposed to the media per se like living in a isolated tribe and they read it...well.. it would just be a very standard plain reading kind of....like they wouldnt have the thought of "millions and millions" of years in mind so...i hope that helps? if you want the site i will link it...

I don't want a link, I want you to think. Why do you insist on a day being only interpreted as 24 hours when there are two other definitions? Why isn't the 6-day creation only six twelve hour periods, using day to mean daylight hours, the way Genesis distinguishes between day and night?

 

For that matter, Genesis 1 tells us God created day and night on both the first day, and then again on the fourth day:

Genesis 1:3-5 ³ And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. ⁴ God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.

Genesis 1:14-19 ¹⁴ And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. ¹⁶ God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ¹⁷ God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, ¹⁸ to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. ¹⁹ And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.

 

How can you take one narrow interpretation when there are obviously many ways it can be interpreted? And why take an interpretation that the vast majority of Christianity rejects as false? I'm not even asking you to trust Evolution, I'm just asking why creationism seems right to you.

[sammy7]

I'm not even asking you to trust Evolution, I'm just asking why creationism seems right to you.

 

 

 

yah so it appears "light"on the first day (im not god i cant explain this?) and on the 4th day stars sun moon etc...

 

umm why it seems right....mmm.. um.. well....hmm i could make some personal suggestions if you wanted to explore the possiblity of it yourself....but umm well i read only maybe like 2 months ago of people who thought the earth was only around 6000yo and i was like "i want to know WHY they believe that?" like not harsh but like curiosity..... i thought it was strange because it isnt what we hear all the time and they seemed cool about it..... and then i started reading etc etc watching vids with richard dawkins etc etc actually it was my reading of origin of species god delusion etc etc that kinda made me read more about this 6000yo thing coz i personally felt as if there books didnt have any MY OPINION science in them THAT WAS MY OPINION so yeah....umm and just started reading more and more and more and then one day a few things hit me...and i was like....wow......this is the most amazing thing ive ever known (imo)....so yeah...umm so actually dawkins and darwin helped me start reading about the 6000yo thing etc.....umm i could provide one more short vid that opened my eyes if you want....(those 2 original vids i posted in this thread did too).......

[Ringer]

I'm not even asking you to trust Evolution, I'm just asking why creationism seems right to you.

 

In no way does creationism even seem right under critical scrutiny.

 

 

 

yah so it appears "light"on the first day (im not god i cant explain this?) and on the 4th day stars sun moon etc...

 

The point is that a literal reading in a single specific way leads to many contradictions that can only be resolved by not reading it literally.

 

 

umm why it seems right....mmm.. um.. well....hmm i could make some personal suggestions if you wanted to explore the possiblity of it yourself....but umm well i read only maybe like 2 months ago of people who thought the earth was only around 6000yo and i was like "i want to know WHY they believe that?" like not harsh but like curiosity..... i thought it was strange because it isnt what we hear all the time and they seemed cool about it..... and then i started reading etc etc watching vids with richard dawkins etc etc actually it was my reading of origin of species god delusion etc etc that kinda made me read more about this 6000yo thing coz i personally felt as if there books didnt have any MY OPINION science in them THAT WAS MY OPINION so yeah....umm and just started reading more and more and more and then one day a few things hit me...and i was like....wow......this is the most amazing thing ive ever known (imo)....so yeah...umm so actually dawkins and darwin helped me start reading about the 6000yo thing etc.....umm i could provide one more short vid that opened my eyes if you want....(those 2 original vids i posted in this thread did too).......

 

Those videos don't show anything about evolution being right or wrong. They have no evidence other than people talking, you can't over throw more than a century of scientific evidence with an everyday conversation. Evidence is needed.