Dishonesty in the scientific community?

[rasputin89]

But you still avoided answering my question:

1 Why do traces of complex life-forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian strata?

I don't recall avoiding this question. I don't even recall it being asked. Why something occurs is best left to philosophers and thinkers. Why anything exists is up for each person to decide for themselves.

And here are some more questions I'd like you to answer:

2 Did the Australian Emu evolve from the Ostrich, or did the Ostrich evolve from the Emu?

Or do they have a common ancestor?

3 What if in a few million Emus and Ostriches have long since become extinct and natural scientists find fossils of both, and then claim the Ostrich evolved from the Emu?

4 Is it absolutely impossible within all possible realms and faculties of scientific thinking that within the DNA molecule of each species is a built-in ability to adapt to changes so that physiological changes can be contained within each species' DNA molecules; and that this was actually planned in the same way that today a computer program may be programmed to write its own programs?

2 - Likely a common ancestor. Eventually, if you were to continue backtracking (via a conceptual time machine of course), you would encounter their ancestor and the common ancestor for all birds.

3 - If in a few million years Emus and Ostriches have long since become extinct and natural scientists find fossils of both, and then claim the Ostrich evolved from the Emu it will likely go unrecognized by the scientific community and be classified as a minor find.

4 - Yes

Here we go again: "Whenever our theory fails, or whenever solid, living proof of the falsehood of our religious faith in evolution is found, then it's an exception."

So natural scientists get to pick and choose which species on earth have barely changed from their ancestral prehistoric forms, and which haven't.

The Coelecanth, Shark and Crocodile are not exempt from the laws of natural selection. For that is what drives evolution (natural selection). The strongest of a species that possesses the most beneficial genetic adaptations will pass on their DNA to the next generation.

But, I must agree that the way scientists analyze evidence is a fiendish way to "pick and choose" how species evolve.

Thank you for admitting that.

.......XD. Your ability to detect sarcasm confounds me.

So you're going to provide us with the evidence here in this thread, right? I mean, you're not going to just claim there's evidence and it's growing, and not provide it, right?

I've already been providing plenty of evidence for evolution. But, if you'd rather have a total noobie explain everything to you in a forum, rather then looking it up yourself, I will do my best to oblige.

And I would like you to answer some more questions:

5 Assuming that, for example, these horse-like creatures that you spoke about (the ancestors of the modern horse) were not individual species similar to, yet individual from the horses of today (like Emus and Ostriches are similar and one species, yet individual and different), is it impossible that within the DNA of each species is the ability to adapt to environment etc, so that physiological changes can take place?

6 Is ability to adapt and change contained within the DNA molecule proof of evolution or creation by intelligent design?

7 Does not physiological change (not brought about through an inherent D.N.A - produced ability to adapt) always involve cell-mutation, and does not cell-mutation always result in deformity?

The last question I want to ask you is a multiple choice-question (so it's nice and easy):

8 Imagine you are standing in front of a wall with two diagrams: a diagram of a Boeing 747 and its mechanical workings, and next to it, a diagram of the human eye with its workings.

Which of them was designed by intelligent design:

(a) Neither of them.

(b) Both of them.

[rasputin89]

You want proof? Proof? OK, what about bigfoot then? It's not worth fighting about. Concentrate on Jesus. If half of us studied our bibles as much as we studied evolution vs creation vs monkeys, the world would be a much better place.

All it takes is faith

Ironically, studying the bible just leads to more debate and argument over what is in that book.

I think that science is crucial for advancing our knowledge of the universe and for improving our quality of life. Texts from the past and religious books can teach good (or sometimes bad) moral reasoning for society. But, studying ancient literature will not advance medicine, energy, and other crucial factors in our society.

That's no reason not to study the Bible, rasputin.

Anyways, Fez. I understand why you say what you're saying, but this is kinda like the "Faith vs. science board and Rasputin is kinda like a welcome guest who picked the right board at Worthy Forums.

I'm not mad at him or fighting with him - he sure don't seem like he's here with the sole motive of playing games and attacking Christianity. And he aint fightin' either.

I'll know when it's my time to exit - soon as that stale-mate has been reached in this thread between me and Rasputin (yeah I know, there's no competition between religious faith in evolution and faith in the revealed Word of God , but I'll be outta this thread later, as soon as I'm done and my time is up)

Let the great debate between creation and evolution continue I will be in the right corner attempting to enlighten a creationist on the wonders of nature. In the left will be lekh attempting to enlighten an evolutionist on the wonders of nature.

[sysvr4]

[...] with codes and instructions for reproduction contained within their DNA (which resemble mathematical codes that under normal circumstances only incredibly advanced intelligence could provide) [...]

I have no interest in the evolution debate, however I will point out that mathematics is merely an artifact of human consciousness; it has no bearing on whether or not something was intelligently designed. Any sufficiently large set will contain apparent patterns.

[lekh l'kha]

But you still avoided answering my question:

1 Why do traces of complex life-forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian strata?

I don't recall avoiding this question. I don't even recall it being asked. Why something occurs is best left to philosophers and thinkers. Why anything exists is up for each person to decide for themselves.

Is that your only and your best answer to the obvious question arising from the evidence, namely, that in the oldest fossil-record on earth (stretching from the Cambrian period), traces of complex life-forms appear suddenly ?

But, I must agree that the way scientists analyze evidence is a fiendish way to "pick and choose" how species evolve.

Thank you for admitting that.

.......XD. Your ability to detect sarcasm confounds me.

Likewise.

So you're going to provide us with the evidence here in this thread, right? I mean, you're not going to just claim there's evidence and it's growing, and not provide it, right?

I've already been providing plenty of evidence for evolution. But, if you'd rather have a total noobie explain everything to you in a forum, rather then looking it up yourself, I will do my best to oblige.

No you haven't. And I'll try and explain to you why:

EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ONE EXAMPLE ONLY - SORRY, CAN'T PLACE ALL THE THOUSANDS OF THEM ALL UP IN THIS THREAD)

Let's take a look at the development of the human eye in the foetus:

Millions of optic nerves from the brain grow toward the position where the eyes are to be formed, and

millions of optic nerves grow toward the brain from the position where the eyes are to be formed.

These optic nerves cannot grow in random directions - they must grow toward one another, and they must all meet one another

- but not randomly -

they must meet with the utmost precision: Nerve #1 must meet nerve #1; and nerve # 2 must meet nerve #2; and nerve # 12,622 must meet nerve # 12,622, etc, etc, etc. Failure for this to occur properly, results in the baby being born blind.

Once the eyes have been formed, and at a certain stage during the development of the foetus, a biological "razor" appears seemingly out of nowhere, and makes a slit in the skin covering the eyes, to form eyelids so that the eyes can open and the child can see.

The cells of our eyes, of course, need constant "winding up" in order to function properly, and this occurs through the natural daily cycles of cell reproduction and replacement, when our old cells die. It's the same for the rest of the body's functions.

All the information needed for this development and functioning of the human eye is contained within the human DNA molecule.

The human eye is one of thousands upon thousands of examples of evidence of intelligent design to be found in nature - in humans, in animals, in fish, birds, plants, and even in insects, and in the behavior of insects.

FLAT EARTH

I met a man in the 80's who firmly believed the earth is flat.

He had tonnes of evidence to prove the earth is flat,

and, of course, he flatly ignored all the evidence to the contrary.

NATURAL SELECTION

My grandather's wrist-watch was one of those good, old-fashioned mechanical wrist-watches that needed constant winding up to function, yet it kept time with almost the same amazing precision found in nature (such as in the development and functioning of the human eye).

Of course, I could tell you that my grandfather never bought that watch, nor was it given to him:

He picked it up at a place where some rocks and stones cause a mineral-rich stream to dam-up a little, having found it among a number of others.

The elements needed for the formation of the watches were all found in the mineral-rich water, the source of which was a spring coming from deep under the ground.

My grandfatrher's watch was formed through a process of natural-selection over a period of millennia.

IGNORING THE ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY

You see, Rasputin89, just like we can never take seriosusly the interpretation of the "evidence" for a flat earth existing only in the minds of those who believe in a flat earth (because we know perfectly well that they flatly ignore all the abundant evidence to the contrary), so we can never take seriously natural scientists' interpretation of the "evidence" for natural selection which exists only in your minds, because we know that you flatly ignore all the abundant evidence to the contrary.

Ignoring evidence is ignoring evidence; and ignoring the evidence produces false interpretations of false "evidence" for a flat earth. Err... sorry... correction: for "natural selection".

The flat-earther is pre-disposed by his religious faith in a flat earth to interpret certain things as "evidence" for a flat earth - but it turns out the "evidence" he has is no evidence at all.

It's the same with the evolutionist's interpretation of the things he finds as "evidence" - his religious belief in evolution will pre-dispose him to interpret whatever he sees "in the light of" his faith.

lekh

Edited July 10, 2009 by lekh l'kha

[lekh l'kha]

Oh good, man provided some links to evidence of intelligent design in the other thread.

Thanks, man

While we're waiting.....

Check this out.

And this.

This is kinda neat.

One more.

Go check it out in man's post in the other thread:

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Trans...20&start=20

Edited July 10, 2009 by lekh l'kha

[rasputin89]

Is that your only and your best answer to the obvious question arising from the evidence, namely, that in the oldest fossil-record on earth (stretching from the Cambrian period), traces of complex life-forms appear suddenly ?

I will go out on a limb here and say that you mean to ask me how these life-forms came to be. This I've already explained in a previous post and will explain again. These prehistoric bacteria were formed by the natural chemical reactions between the basic organic compounds that existed at the time.

We already know that phospholipid segments of the cell membrane can natural occur and this has been recreated in lab experiments. These segments natural conjoin and can form cell membranes.

All this discussion about the origin of life goes off topic. It is very shrouded with mystery, but pertains very little to the natural processes that have occurred since. Evolution is the way nature has changed over time and does not pertain to the origin of life directly.

EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ONE EXAMPLE ONLY - SORRY, CAN'T PLACE ALL THE THOUSANDS OF THEM ALL UP IN THIS THREAD)

Let's take a look at the development of the human eye in the foetus:

Millions of optic nerves from the brain grow toward the position where the eyes are to be formed, and

millions of optic nerves grow toward the brain from the position where the eyes are to be formed.

These optic nerves cannot grow in random directions - they must grow toward one another, and they must all meet one another

- but not randomly -

they must meet with the utmost precision: Nerve #1 must meet nerve #1; and nerve # 2 must meet nerve #2; and nerve # 12,622 must meet nerve # 12,622, etc, etc, etc. Failure for this to occur properly, results in the baby being born blind.

Once the eyes have been formed, and at a certain stage during the development of the foetus, a biological "razor" appears seemingly out of nowhere, and makes a slit in the skin covering the eyes, to form eyelids so that the eyes can open and the child can see.

The cells of our eyes, of course, need constant "winding up" in order to function properly, and this occurs through the natural daily cycles of cell reproduction and replacement, when our old cells die. It's the same for the rest of the body's functions.

All the information needed for this development and functioning of the human eye is contained within the human DNA molecule.

The human eye is one of thousands upon thousands of examples of evidence of intelligent design to be found in nature - in humans, in animals, in fish, birds, plants, and even in insects, and in the behavior of insects.

This doesn't prove intelligent design. All this explains is the complexity of the human eye and the amazing ability of DNA.

FLAT EARTH

I met a man in the 80's who firmly believed the earth is flat.

He had tonnes of evidence to prove the earth is flat,

and, of course, he flatly ignored all the evidence to the contrary.

What exactly is this tonnes of evidence of the world being flat? Again this does not prove intelligent design. This just proves that in the 80s you met a man who was an idiot.

NATURAL SELECTION

My grandather's wrist-watch was one of those good, old-fashioned mechanical wrist-watches that needed constant winding up to function, yet it kept time with almost the same amazing precision found in nature (such as in the development and functioning of the human eye).

Of course, I could tell you that my grandfather never bought that watch, nor was it given to him:

He picked it up at a place where some rocks and stones cause a mineral-rich stream to dam-up a little, having found it among a number of others.

The elements needed for the formation of the watches were all found in the mineral-rich water, the source of which was a spring coming from deep under the ground.

My grandfatrher's watch was formed through a process of natural-selection over a period of millennia.

This is just silly dribble. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to natural selection. This again does not prove intelligent design.

IGNORING THE ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY

You see, Rasputin89, just like we can never take seriosusly the interpretation of the "evidence" for a flat earth existing only in the minds of those who believe in a flat earth (because we know perfectly well that they flatly ignore all the abundant evidence to the contrary), so we can never take seriously natural scientists' interpretation of the "evidence" for natural selection which exists only in your minds, because we know that you flatly ignore all the abundant evidence to the contrary.

Ignoring evidence is ignoring evidence; and ignoring the evidence produces false interpretations of false "evidence" for a flat earth. Err... sorry... correction: for "natural selection".

The flat-earther is pre-disposed by his religious faith in a flat earth to interpret certain things as "evidence" for a flat earth - but it turns out the "evidence" he has is no evidence at all.

It's the same with the evolutionist's interpretation of the things he finds as "evidence" - his religious belief in evolution will pre-dispose him to interpret whatever he sees "in the light of" his faith.

lekh

I have not ignored the evidence to the contrary. The only evidence against evolution you brought up was the coelecanth. The truth about the coelecanth is that scientists have found that the ones discovered recently are not identical to the prehistoric coelecanth. The two species of coelecanth that have been discovered also vary genetically from each other. These two species of coelecanth are descended from the isolated remnants of the prehistoric coelecanth (which came close to the brink of extinction). The coelecanth has evolved from its prehistoric ancestor.

Above you have not given me any proof of intelligent design. You've just given me weak attempts at counterexamples for evolution.

Also, you need to distinguish between evolution by natural selection (the theory) and natural selection (the fact). Natural selection is survival of the fittest. In nature the strongest animals survive and propagate their DNA. The strongest animals possess the most beneficial traits amongst their species. The weakest animals are genetically inferior. Thus, disadvantageous genes and traits die off with the weaker lifeforms and the beneficial characteristics become more common.

Natural selection is used as evidence for evolution. Natural selection leads to change in a species' DNA. This happens slowly and gradually over time. As we know, DNA is what identifies a species. If DNA changes enough then that species ceases to be what it once was and becomes a new species.

Intelligent design is a theory that is based around the assumption that if a watch is made by a watchmaker then the watchmaker is made by a watchmakermaker. If I were to follow this logic it leads me to wonder who created the creator, and who created the creator's creator? Basing a theory over this logic, however, is not evidence of intelligent design.

I am yet to encounter any relevant or convincing evidence for intelligent design. Some components of nature would indicate unintelligent design. Humans still possess the useless appendix and the unnecessary wisdom teeth. Humans are also animals that use only 10% of their inherent brain power. Why would an intelligent designer create such unnecessary waste?

[MorningGlory]

[...] with codes and instructions for reproduction contained within their DNA (which resemble mathematical codes that under normal circumstances only incredibly advanced intelligence could provide) [...]

I have no interest in the evolution debate, however I will point out that mathematics is merely an artifact of human consciousness; it has no bearing on whether or not something was intelligently designed. Any sufficiently large set will contain apparent patterns.

An artifact of human consciousness? Mathematics? So it's some slapdash holdover from....uh, what? In order to be an artifact it would need to be left over from a previous state. Would that be the amoebas we supposedly evolved from? I'm sorry but any accident that repeats, forms closed areas of repeatability and reproduces itself is NO accident. Even the most cement headed among us should recognize that.

[lekh l'kha]

STALEMATE

I say you haven't provided and can't provide proof and your "proof" is no proof because it's based on your religious faith in the unproven theory of evolution.

You say nature does not and can't provide proof for intelligent design and if anyone believes there's intelligent design in nature, that's his faith.

STALEMATE

It was nice chatting to you, rasputin89. I'll Leave you with this (and yes, I will read what you leave me with, if you leave me with any final comments):

"Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts; and in the hidden part You shall make me to know wisdom." (Psa 51:6)

"Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear Jehovah and depart from evil." (Pro 3:7)

"for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," (Rom 3:23)

"The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him." (Eze 18:20)

"Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mat 22:37-39)

Disobeying this even in thought, motive or desire (not only in word and deed), is sin.

"The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him." (Eze 18:20)

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:6)

"For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2Co 5:21)

"He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that dying to sins, we might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed." (1Pe 2:24)

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (Joh 3:16)

"whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us." (2Co 5:19)

"Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." (Joh 14:6)

"... Sin no more lest a worse thing come to you." (Joh 5:14)

God bless,

lekh

[rasputin89]

STALEMATE

I say you haven't provided and can't provide proof and your "proof" is no proof because it's based on your religious faith in the unproven theory of evolution.

You say nature does not and can't provide proof for intelligent design and if anyone believes there's intelligent design in nature, that's his faith.

STALEMATE

It was nice chatting to you, rasputin89. I'll Leave you with this (and yes, I will read what you leave me with, if you leave me with any final comments):

lekh

GG Lekh.

It has been a very fun debate (which is weird because debate was the one thing I absolutely dreaded in High School).

We have been lucky enough to see what happens when an unstoppable force contacts an unmovable object. Nothing!

May the force be with you,

Rasputin

[sysvr4]

[...] with codes and instructions for reproduction contained within their DNA (which resemble mathematical codes that under normal circumstances only incredibly advanced intelligence could provide) [...]

I have no interest in the evolution debate, however I will point out that mathematics is merely an artifact of human consciousness; it has no bearing on whether or not something was intelligently designed. Any sufficiently large set will contain apparent patterns.

An artifact of human consciousness? Mathematics? So it's some slapdash holdover from....uh, what? In order to be an artifact it would need to be left over from a previous state. Would that be the amoebas we supposedly evolved from? I'm sorry but any accident that repeats, forms closed areas of repeatability and reproduces itself is NO accident. Even the most cement headed among us should recognize that.

I'm not certain you're familiar with the use of "artifact" within this context.

ar