Jump to content

one.opinion

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

405 Good

4 Followers

About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,637 profile views
  1. Yes, it takes a serious convolution of logic and the English language to reinterpret the 14th amendment in ways that would not guarantee what it actually says - individuals born in the nation are citizens. The confusion is not in your understanding, but the inherent need to obfuscate what is plain in order to change the clear meaning of the amendment.
  2. Ok, I will respond to this :-) I have also had some experience with ugly debates and I have come away from a thread or two that forced me to ask my Lord for forgiveness. Thank you for the pleasant exchange and for the kind words. I greatly appreciate your ability to stand firmly on what you believe without resorting to vilifying my position. Grace and peace, my brother.
  3. Your argumentation is growing desperate if you are ignoring the facts I am presenting and focusing on word choice. It may be about time to wrap this up. When the available evidence repeatedly points to evolution as the most plausible explanation, that is doing good science. Sometimes, scientific answers must be inferred. Unless you propose an experiment by which a researcher collects data for 30 million years to test the Cambrian explosion. The best available evidence is carefully analyzed (in the case of the Cambrian explosion, this is the fossil record) and most plausible explanations are drawn. The plausibility of large-scale evolution is based on smaller-scale evolution that can be observed by direct experimentation. Thus, some science is done by inference. Here is something I can actually agree with. Growing up in a Christian home with parents that taught me well about my Savior, belief in God came quite easily for me. The evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the development of the early church support my belief in the one, true God. My belief in evolution as a tool of the Creator came much harder. I grew up as a Young Earth Creationist and it took roughly a decade of education in Biology (I earned a PhD about 20 years ago) for me to accept evolution. This is not because the evidence is weak, but because I was wrongly taught that a non-literal view of Genesis was accepting the word of man over the Word of God. All truth is God's truth - the truth of His Word and the truth of His might works. When evidence is clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't match the evidence of His works, then there was a fundamental misunderstanding of His Word. Historically we have seen this as Christians have come to accept that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa, as well as several other misunderstandings about nature that began with an overly literal interpretation of the Bible. You may argue that science is the work of man, but I would counter that interpretation of the Bible is also the work of man and both of these can be in error. This is another desperate argument that does not deal with the information I have shared with you. I can understand why you may not want to face the real evidence for evolution, rather than the easily-discredited "proofs against evolution", such as those you have supplied. I was in the same position one day. Thanks for the conversation, but I agree this has probably wound to a close. Respond if you like, but I suspect that this will be my last post on this thread. I look forward to a day when fellow believers in Christ can agree to disagree on such issues and focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
  4. This question suggests that you believe a fully-formed vertebrate organism one day did not have a heart or blood vessels, and then the next day had a fully functional cardiovascular system. It is a caricature that is far-removed from evolutionary theory. I don't know where you copied this series of "points disproving evolution", but the author repeatedly shows a level of scientific competence I would expect in a middle-school student, yet believes that they know more then experts in these specific fields. We can look at the variety of living organisms today and see simpler versions of all of these organ systems. It is no stretch to actually see how these organisms developed. Let's use the heart as an example. Fish have a two-chambered heart - a single atrium for receiving incoming blood and a single ventricle for sending blood out into the circulatory system. The hypothetical transition from an aquatic environment to terrestrial environment (remember the Tiktaalik) would require a greater efficiency in the cardiovascular system. Amphibians, which of course are partially aquatic. They can absorb some oxygen through the skin, but also have lungs (derived from the fish swim bladder, by the way). The heart gets a little more complicated than the fish heart, and typically has three chambers, instead of two. They still have a single ventricle, which pumps blood into both the pulmonary circuit and the systemic circuit, but have two atria - one for accepting blood from the pulmonary circuit and one accepting blood from the systemic circuit. Yes, the heart did require a transition, but there is no reason to believe that this could not happen by a slow, steady development of the heart into the more efficient version. Terrestrial turtles and tortoises have a three chambered heart with a partial septum in the single ventricle. You can see where this is going... Just a little bit more development, and then you have the classic four-chambered heart that we see in mammals and birds. A very similar progression can be inferred for all of our organ systems just by observing and studying other organisms on the planet today.
  5. Although it is tangential to the point, you are completely missing my view of scripture. God's Word is true, it does not need our defense or our proof, or that of science. You believe that the creation account in Genesis is entirely literal. I believe that aspects of the creation account are figurative. You are trying to defend a literal viewpoint of the Genesis account with scientific evidence, but the available scientific evidence supports evolution of life over billions of years, rather than a 144-hour creation 6000 years ago. I do not have the books that have been quoted here, but I can guarantee that there is additional material from the authors that offers their hypothesis for an explanation. I'm not arguing that the development of sexual reproduction is obvious. I'm saying that it is much more plausible when one is really informed of the facts. Your "point 2" quote was from someone who obviously did not have all the facts. It is widely believed among scientists that the primary advantage of sexual reproduction is the inherent genetic diversity. There are certainly other reasons why it is important. Some (like in this example) may have a differing opinion about what the primary advantage is. The particular details regarding the development of sexual reproduction, particularly as we see it in vertebrates, may be unknown, but that is a far cry from evidence against evolution. No argument that sexual reproduction is less efficient. But again, there are advantages to sexual reproduction, primarily increased genetic diversity. You are overcomplicating sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction occurs even in many single-celled organisms, where there is no such thing as "male" or "female", but cells of different mating type. In Brewer's yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the mating types are "a" and "alpha". While these can't really be considred two different sexes, one can easily imagine mating types developing over time into progressively less-and-less similar organisms, finally developing into male and female versions of a species like we see today. Due to reasons I have explained, this is not a valid question.
  6. I'm pretty sure we weren't debating. You presented work from another author and I was explaining why the "facts" the author presented were false. Not in the least. You posted a quote with multiple errors. You did follow up with mention of punctuated equilibrium. So what had been proposed 150 years ago was shown to be incomplete and needed modification of existing theory. That's a rather minor flaw. The field of genetics has also been updated in the last 150 years. That doesn't mean that the field of genetics should be discarded. No, I understand the point that was made, I just explained why the point was inaccurate and worthless as evidence against evolution. I understand your confusion, but "Evolution News and Views" is absolutely NOT an evolutionist publication. It is the primary blog of the ID movement, the main public outreach effort of the Discovery Institute. It is completely anti-evolution. Yes, there are trade-offs to sexual reproduction. There is definitely an energy requirement for sexual dimorphism. However, this is offset by the increased genetic variability inherent in sexual reproduction and why even many single-celled organisms have the capability of sexual reproduction. Yes, meiosis is complex and differs from mitosis. However, the argument that "this process is complex, so could not have evolved" is opinion unsupported by evidence (therefore, not a scientific argument). Neither point 1 nor point 2 is an effective argument against evolution.
  7. Very well, now that I’ve shown why point number 1 is false, I am fine moving on to point number 2. The author’s attempted point takes an overly narrow view of sexual reproduction. The author is apparently completely unaware of the thousands of species of protists and fungi that are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. With this reproductive flexibility, the “where are the parents??!” attempted point is easily dismissed. Sexual reproduction has evolved from a very simple process in single-celled organisms like yeast to more complicated processes as seen in vertebrates. Point number 2 is just as easily dismissed as point 1. If you are sure you want to move on, I’ll be happy check out point 3.
  8. You are missing the point. Wood is a PhD scientist. Wood is also YEC. Wood states there is “gone and gone” of evidence for evolution. He is basing is YEC beliefs in the Bible, not because there is “no evidence” for evolution. The claim of no evidence is absolutely false.
  9. Todd Wood is a PhD-educated biologist that is also a Young Earth Creationist. He has this to say about evolution: Why do you think someone very familiar with the issue, yet maintaining a YEC view, says that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution?
  10. I would agree that the only reasonable objection to evolution is a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. However, based on the available evidence, I believe it is appropriate to consider a non-literal interpretation. This has been the case with Biblical passages that indicate a flat earth, a stationary earth with a revolving sun, and a solid dome sky supported by pillars. For each example, the evidence in God’s creation overwhelmed a literal interpretation. I believe it is appropriate in this case, as well.
  11. Perhaps you could explain what I got wrong instead of simply claiming I don't understand and removing yourself from the conversation.
  12. Evidence led to the new concept, not just imagination. What do you think led to the change in scale, if not evolution on the molecular level? There certainly are still questions about the fossil record, and the number of transitional species (remember, these actually do exist) is smaller than I'm sure paleontologists would prefer, but it is just plain false to claim that there is a "complete absence of transitional forms". That is what completely erodes the notion that "the fossils disprove evolution".
  13. Sounds like a reasonable place to start :-) I should probably note before I start that my area of expertise is molecular biology rather than paleontology, but I'll attempt to respond fairly and completely. What data would you use to support this hypothesis? To use one example, it would seem to me that a fish and an early land vertebrate would be more stable than a transitional form (like Tiktaalik) between the two. There are many fish fossils and many fossils that are determined to be early land vertebrates, but the transition between the two is very rare. If I recall correctly, Tiktaalik fossils have been found in only one location. The Tiktaalik evidence shows us two important things. First, that there is indeed fossil evidence supporting the aspect of evolution hypothesizing that aquatic vertebrates had to transition to land vertebrates. Second, that the fossil record (as huge as it is) is only a minute fraction of all the animals that have existed on the planet. I guess it depends on your personal definition of "many", but I would have to say that there are many examples of transitional fossils. Tiktaalik is one, and the series of fossils leading from terrestrial mammal to whale is another common example. This includes several fossils such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Duradon. There are many other examples of fossils that appear to be transitional. There are much longer lists on the internet, but here is one site with a few good examples - http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ Not really... I'm not sure where you copied this from, but this is a really strange idea. A non-functional appendage would be very unlikely to exhibit a survival advantage, and thus would not be expected at all to be present in the fossil record. Although the theory of evolution would require the origination of novel structures, most transitional forms would involve an existing part altering structure and function, finally ending in a new part. Tiktaalik is another good example of this. Paleontologists and anatomists agree that it was a fish, but the bone structure indicates that the fins could be used as walking appendages, just as we see in some other fish today. Why does the author expect trillions of fossilized transitional forms? This isn't very reasonable since the number of total fossils discovered to this point is considerably lower than that. The author is stretching an inference from the Biblical text. Of course animals reproduce according to their kind. If an alligator hatched out of a clutch of turtle eggs, that really would be a scientific problem. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that "kinds" could not change over time or that transitional forms do not exist. This is a purely human idea, not based on either science or the Bible. This is false. There are absolutely are transitional fossils. The author may not accept them, but denial of evidence doesn't mean that the evidence is lacking. There are extremely few credentialed paleontologists that think the fossil record is a problem for evolution, while virtually all of them see the problems in the fossil record for Young Earth Creation. I'd be happy to discuss that with you further, if you wish, but don't feel obligated.
  14. There are 2 different ways that this argument of improbability can be countered. First, if my beliefs are correct, then God set up the physical reality of living things and allowed them to evolve. As God is omnipotent, He could set the development of living things on a trajectory that would eventually develop hemoglobin genes despite the odds. Second, from a purely naturalistic standpoint, the odds really don't mean a lot. Hypothetically, a gene existed that made a protein with a certain affinity for oxygen. The gene for oxygen-binding protein would alter over time by natural selection into a form that made proteins with higher and higher oxygen affinity. That end product would not necessarily be what we now observe today in hemoglobin genes. Personally, I prefer the first scenario, but either way, the argument of probability isn't as strong as it first sounds. It certainly isn't proof against evolution. This argument could be used against an atheistic view of evolution, but does not apply if we assume God initiated the process of evolution.
  15. This is really too much to address at one time. If you truly wish to discuss the science, could you pick a single topic for us to focus on?
×
×
  • Create New...