Listen to Erathoniel ranting on and on in good ol' conservative Christian fashion.
Yeah, I'm making a new version, because the old one got flooded. This will, however, clarify.
Published on April 16, 2008 By erathoniel In Pure Technology

Intelligent Design is proved by two scientific statements: Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and Occam's Razor. Basically, nothing can come from nothing, without an outside force.

    What I meant by this statement was that due to the Theory or Relativity, everything had to be created somehow and Occam's Razor would mean that any attempt to explain it as a mere co-incidence is more-or-less putting a customized one-person secular theology in. For those who haven't read the article I haven't written yet or anything by anyone else, any belief is a theology if it's taken as a belief of the greatest power. Yes, evolutionists worship evolution.

Also, mind you that we know nothing on the specifics of the Creation. If God willed it, we could have evolved from monocellular organisms, but, importantly, God made the universe.

    Yeah, I screwed up my own quote here. Intentionally. The thought ends there. God made the universe within certain constraints, so he could have made us over a trillion years, because, quite simply, a day to him is eternity to us.

He knows what will happen, and anything that has or will happen has been mandated by Him, as are all things happening at this time.

    Yes, I do correct my quotes often. This one is pure theology. Basically, God rules, we drool. Our best efforts are menstrual rags to the power of God. Our sacrifices? Paul uses an obscene term in the original Greek. Basically, God quite literally owns us. However, we are given free will. Paradoxial free-will with a pre-destined future. I'll ask God when I die. Too bad I probably won't put up another entry then.

    I'm putting this in Science, given the prevelence of evolution in the scientific community. Oh, and keep the comments on-topic. No digital high-fiving.


Comments (Page 4)
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Apr 26, 2008
never the twane did meet


Okay, okay, okay. I've held off this long, but I can't hold off anymore.

1)It's twain, not twane.

2)Twain means that something that was previously together is now divided. Like . . . reptiles and birds. So they weren't twain until they split. And now the twain shall not meet.

I don't mind colloquialisms when they're properly used, but I couldn't stand this blatant misuse anymore.
on Apr 26, 2008
Your complete misunderstanding of the concept of evolution combined with your vehement denial is something that puzzles me to no end. All of the evidence and answers you seek are readily available in scientific literature.


Let's try one more time to understand definitions.

We have no problem agreeing what microevolution is and that it occurs.

Macro-Evolution is a molecules to man natural transformation in which new, higher genetic info is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors. The idea of change to something vastly different (as reptiles supposedly to birds) is the understanding now commonly held. It is indeed what you have been saying here.

Oh and you want an example of macroevolution? I found a little something while I was digging around:

"Speciation through evolution (i.e., macroevolution) is actually pretty routine in agriculture. Where do creationists believe seedless watermelon come from? Is God creating new ones every generation? In fact, it's pretty easy in the plant kingdom to create a mutation that will breed true, but won't breed back with its parent species. That's the very definition of speciation. That's where seedless watermelon, for instance, come from; from normal diploid watermelon, they selected a tetraploid mutant which bred true. Breed the tetraploid back to the diploid, and the progeny are seedless, i.e. sterile.


This example is NOT ONE OF MACROEVOLUTION at least not according to the definition I provided above. The watermelon is still a watermelon.

Variety within kind is not macroevolution. Again, becasue new, higher genetic info is not gained in the process giving rise to change from one species to a completely new different one.

Natural selection is not macroevolution for the same reason....new, higher genetic info is not gained, but instead tends to be lost, at best. Natural Selection only conserves existing genetic info in life forms.





on Apr 26, 2008
Okay, okay, okay. I've held off this long, but I can't hold off anymore.

1)It's twain, not twane.

2)Twain means that something that was previously together is now divided. Like . . . reptiles and birds. So they weren't twain until they split. And now the twain shall not meet.

I don't mind colloquialisms when they're properly used, but I couldn't stand this blatant misuse anymore.


Much thanks SanChonino, I stand corrected. I'm glad to see that at least you understood the meaning of the misspelling.   

on Apr 26, 2008
To say only microevolution happens is like saying that a tree only grows into a sapling and then stops. You know redwoods, right? They come from a tiny seed, but take hundreds of years to acheive their full height. Just because we can't watch it happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Growth to maturity is not macroevolution.....

The normal pattern of growth from conception to adulthood involves an unfolding and change of shape and size, look and texture, but again new, higher genetic information is not gained in the process.

on Apr 26, 2008
Use it in a sentence!

"He split Robin's arrow in twain!"
on Apr 26, 2008
This example is NOT ONE OF MACROEVOLUTION at least not according to the definition I provided above. The watermelon is still a watermelon.

Variety within kind is not macroevolution. Again, becasue new, higher genetic info is not gained in the process giving rise to change from one species to a completely new different one.

Natural selection is not macroevolution for the same reason....new, higher genetic info is not gained, but instead tends to be lost, at best. Natural Selection only conserves existing genetic info in life forms.


The point is that once two different types of watermelon can no longer interbreed, genetic drift, random mutatiions, etc. will take them in two different directions. For example, sickle cell anemia is very common among the African American population. This is because having one functional copy of the sicklecell gene and one mutant copy makes an individual resistant to malaria, a big killer on the African continent. According to Al Gore's An Inconvienent Truth, several African countries were founded right above the "mosquito line" just because mosquitos transmit diseases like malaria. So it makes sense that such a painful and horrid mutation would become more prevalent there, right? I mean, the heterozygotes have a huge advantage.

Well, that's true. But that begs the question, "Why is sickle cell anemia not common among Latin American populations, where malaria is also a big problem?" The answer is that sicklecell mutated in Africa. It simply did not mutate in Latin America. The environment does not produce mutations (unless you consider mutagens). Mutations happen randomly, and very rarely, they are beneficial. This is an example of two imperfectly inbreeding populations differentiating, the Africans and the Latin Americans. If it were literally impossible for two populations to mate, the situation intensifies.

The only qualifier for a new species is that it is a viable offspring that can reproduce with itself but not its parent.

PS. In case you were thinking, "Yeah, but sickle cell is a degenerate mutation." There are mechanisms, like translocation, through which two different alleles can transfer and be expressed from the same chromosome. Any individual who inherits the two traits linked might receive resistance to malaria and still produce enough normal cells to avoid anemia.

~ Docta' Cscoles
on Apr 26, 2008

Biologically, we are not technically the same as animals.

 

Absolutely, 100% true....for starters, we have completely different DNA.

 

 

on Apr 26, 2008
Very good Jythier, cookie for the right answer.

(Or is it a smack up the head? I can't remember. )
on Apr 26, 2008
Growth to maturity is not macroevolution.....


Apparently you have not heard of analogies.


Anywho, I'm through arguing. It's absolutely pointless. I can't chisel through your hardheaded belief no matter what I say.

Enjoy your creationism, wrong as it may be.

~Zoo
on Apr 26, 2008
Absolutely, 100% true....for starters, we have completely different DNA.


We have similar DNA, even to a creature as simple as Caenorhabditis elegans (roundworm). Many of the genes we discovered in organsims like the fruit fly (Sonic hedghog, NOTCH1, Antennaepedia, etc.) have human orthologs.
on Apr 26, 2008
We have similar DNA, even to a creature as simple as Caenorhabditis elegans (roundworm). Many of the genes we discovered in organsims like the fruit fly (Sonic hedghog, NOTCH1, Antennaepedia, etc.) have human orthologs.


Indeed they do. But for some reason a few people seem to think we have magic super DNA.

All DNA is the same, it's only a matter of how the sequences are arranged.

~Zoo
on Apr 26, 2008

Absolutely, 100% true....for starters, we have completely different DNA.

Of mice and Men. Everything the field of genetics has tought us fully supports a common ancestory. Why do you think we can use mice to test drugs for humans? You even have the gene for a tail. Genetically all life is related.

Link

on Apr 26, 2008
Intelligent Design doesnt have a theory yet. I mean, even the founder and purported intellectual leader of the movement, Philip Johnson, says as much.

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement.Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Interview here: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue10/evolution.pdf

So they can pursue it (they get several million dollars a year in donations at the Discovery Institute alone) but they don't have a theory to date. Some excited christians think they are further along than they actually are and that leads to issues like Dover, where the ID movement was damaged by a school board trying to push too fast.

on Apr 26, 2008
We have similar DNA,


"Similiar to" and "the same as" animals are two different things...as far apart as east is from west. It's becasue they are different that macroevolution cannot occur.





on Apr 26, 2008
Everything the field of genetics has tought us fully supports a common ancestory.


What precisely is that common ancestry if not Adam and Eve in the case of humankind?

I know we are all part of nature and share the planet earth...
7 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last