I just realized how Confanity can write so fast.  Celtic Crazy says that he had this whole discussion with her earlier, so he’s probably just cutting and pasting the stuff he wrote back then.  Sheeeesh!  And here I’ve been working my tailbone off!  (Trying to evolve that vestigial nuisance outta here, and hoping like crazy that those bowel-control muscles reattach somewhere, cause if they don’t it’s gonna be real embarrassing…….)


 


I’ve been going back trying to find unanswered questions, and here are a couple of mine:


 




  1. Where does Scripture describe our world in a way that is not accurate?


  2. How does the evidence of your senses confirm evolution?


  3. When we’re talking about the beginning of life, there WERE no organisms to go through the Natural selection process—so how can evolution (life from nothing) be accomplished through natural selection?

Now to answer some of yours (and comment a bit–you know me!)



 


Haeckel did not fabricate any details in his embryo drawings; rather, he emphasized the details he was interested in and de-emphasized others. In effect, he drew a sort of caricature… That even this relatively minor departure from strictly objective accuracy caused Haeckel’s embryo drawings to be rejected by the scientific community, may be taken as a measure of how greatly scientists prize objectivity.


 


I can understand why he drew them the way he did.  What I can’t understand is why they are still in textbooks, which should present the truth as best we know it.


 


Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark
and light moths.

During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark
and light moths.


 


Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.

In other words, the only thing that’s happened is that the relative
numbers of each have gone up and down.


 


Huh?  So they haven’t evolved at all?  So why do evolutionists like this example so much?


 


To move from the common ancestor between fish and man, to fish or
to man, required alteration, not genesis, of many structures that already
existed;


 


So where in a jellyfish or sponge (or whatever I am supposed to have evolved from) does one find the beginnings of a skeletal system?  A brain?  I think those things are going to need a genesis!  And what is the probability of each one of these mutations?  And what about the systems that are interdependent—both would have to evolve at the same time, which increases the odds astronomically.


 


And all you need is *one* such [organic] molecule to be capable of causing its own replication


 


Which, though theoretically possible, hasn’t happened yet, right?


 


Even if the chances are only one in a trillion, you’ve got a lot of material and billions of years for it to happen in.


 


And hey, you have faith that in billions of years, pretty much anything could happen.  I could even change my mind!


 


evolution doesn’t *require* it [new genetic info]. Evolution is simply about change, not addition or subtraction


 


But you said that everything had evolved upward.  I’m trying to decide how men could have evolved from a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion without something, somewhere being added.  This doesn’t add up.  (pun intended, yup.)


 


And back to a Bible question:


 


God wants his people to be dependent on him


 


You asked where it said this.  There are so many places!  Try Prov 3:5  Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not to thine own understanding. And  Psa 115:9  O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield. 


 


Think about Abram and Sarah.  After being told they would bear a son, they knew they were too old, so they took matters into their own hands and conceived through a maidservant, Hagar.  Now that was acceptable in that society, but God didn’t want them to do it on their own—He wanted them to depend on Him. 


 


The entire Exodus from Egypt is all about God’s people learning to depend on Him.  It really wasn’t such a terribly long journey, but it was 40 years before God allowed them to enter the promised land.  And all that time, they were supposed to be learning to follow Him.  Needless to say, it’s a hard lesson to learn.


 


Oh, by the way, I looked up cherry-picking, and you are.  We all do.  We find the examples that best suit our position and quote those. 


 


As for your jumping up and down on my evolution definition, I was only trying to explain that I don’t necessarily disagree with ALL of evolution.  Natural selection definitely happens.  Things do change.  People have gotten taller on average, (and fatter, too, but that’s another story.)  The part of “evolution”  that I am contesting is only the part that says that all things evolved from simple organisms to more and more complex ones, eventually resulting in human beings.  For simplicity’s sake, I wanted to focus on that.  Don’t throw a bunch of natural selection examples at me, because they are NOT examples of simple organisms becoming more complex.


 


I believe that science enhances our understanding of God, and that it will always mesh perfectly with Scripture, allowing for language/translation difficulties, of course.  I realize you will scoff at this statement, C, but remember that I consider evolution (of all life from nothing) to be a religion, as is humanism. 


 


How do you verify those long-ago ages?”
-By having multiple independent researchers examine the evidence and see if they arrive at compatible conclusions.


 


Right.  So if I have ten different people X-ray my mouth and verify that my upper left wisdom tooth has been removed, does that make it Truth?  NO.  It wouldn’t be true, because that tooth was never there in the first place.  My point is that just because a lot of people look at the evidence and give a supposition, it doesn’t make Truth.  They don’t have the background information that they need to make an accurate claim.  They weren’t THERE! 


 


Me:  And if you can’t reproduce and verify the results, is it really science?”
Confanity:  Your error is in choosing the wrong thing to reproduce and verify


 


You lost me.  What are we supposed to be doing?


 


It is curious that Creationists who make this claim do not seem to worry about the putative unreliability of indirect observations when they are made by detectives, forensic scientists, or by archaeologists; apparently, only those indirect observations which have some bearing on the origin of the Universe are suspect


 


The difference, of course, is that there have been many provable observations in those fields (with archaeology being somewhat suspect, what with the dating inaccuracies  ) which give a background for their conclusions.  In the field of evolution, there is no pre-existing information that would make the claims consistent. 


 


Me:  I’ve spent some time searching, but they don’t seem to be available.”
C:  -‘Hey Mabel, have you seen the dog?’ [Mabel looks in closet] ‘The dog must not exist, Dan. It’s not here.’


 


Funny.  Here’s my version.—yes, we have a dog.  –Where is it?  –Oh, there’s a picture I drew of it over there…Why, of course it exists—see the picture?


 


The point being that if you’re going to base a claim of horse evolution on horse skeletons, those skeletons ought to exist.  Where are they?


 


From the uneducated shiksa.    (I ought to tell you how much that amused me.  I’ve never been cussed in Yiddish before!)


Advertisements

About dayuntoday

I'm a wonderer. I spend a lot of time mulling, pondering, and cogitating. This is just a place to park some of those thoughts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to

  1. jcl1 says:

    Hey now!  Let’s not think ill of dentists’ observation skills.  What those 10 dentists would point out is that your wisdom teeth are not there, and then they would ask if you’ve ever had them removed, because they know perfectly well that many people are born without them.  They wouldn’t all say, “Oh look, your teeth have been pulled!”
    Okay, dental soapbox is over. 

  2. jcl1 says:

    Pardon me, I meant your “UL wisdom tooth” instead of “all your wisdom teeth.”
    And… while I’m at it: honestly.  The specific nature of Confanity’s replies should make it clear that they’re not a cut and paste deal.  You can’t hold the exact same conversation twice.  That was kind of low.

  3. homefire says:

    Okay, Jen, it was a joke.  Really, have you no sense of humor?  😉 I’m quite aware that he’s answering MY questions.

  4. homefire says:

    And by the way, that was my point–there’s no one to ask about evolution, like there is about the teeth.  You can’t get the background on evolution.  If you only see certain things and draw your conclusions, they are very likely to be faulty.

  5. jcl1 says:

    sense of humor?! why I’ll show YOU my sense of humor! um, just a sec…. oh hey! why did the chicken CROSS the road!!!???Cuz he was Catholic!!! hahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!No matter how much I see or don’t see, I’ll be drawing conclusions. I like drawing. You can’t always recognize my drawings, but so what? It satisfies my artistic urge. Finger painting is even better.Okay, enough of the humor. I can only be so funny after dinner.

  6. Confanity says:

    “I just realized how Confanity can write so fast.”-Aside from the possibility that I just may do a lot of writing in my day-to-day routine… Really, though. Perhaps we can open from now on without the random facetious ad hominem arguments.”Trying to evolve that vestigial nuisance outta here, and hoping like crazy that those bowel-control muscles reattach somewhere, “-Presumably the muscles will remain attached to the bone structure as it continues to develop, over the generations, further away from tailness and toward a more efficient structure… but *only* if the shape of the bone has an impact on reproductive success.”Where does Scripture describe our world in a way that is not accurate?”-Genesis 1:6-8 “God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water.’ God made the expanse, and it separate the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. God called the expanse Sky.” This says pretty clearly that above the sky, there should be an expanse of water identical to that below the sky (ie. the ocean). This is clearly not the case. You might claim that clouds fill the definition, except 1. they aren’t “an expanse of water” and 2. they’re contained within the sky, rather than above it. Any astronaut can tell you that above the sky is hard vacuum. There you go; an inaccurate description.”How does the evidence of your senses confirm evolution?”-You have to realize that evolution is a piece of the entire body of science – a body that continues to grow and develop as we gather new information about the universe and it’s workings. As I’ve already said, with the proper tools you could go out and verify any experiment you choose. What I didn’t say was that “the proper tools” include the entire body of preceding scientific work. For evolution to be wrong instead of merely a bit off-target (and science never claims that a theory can’t be adjusted slightly to make it more accurate)… for evolution to be wrong, then all the rest of science would have to have been wrong in the exact same way throughout history. This includes Mendel’s breeding experiments (which you can easily reproduce in your kitchen), ancient observations of the motions of the stars, and chemistry experiments that I and presumably you, as public-schooled kids, performed.”When we’re talking about the beginning of life, there WERE no organisms to go through the Natural selection process—so how can evolution (life from nothing) be accomplished through natural selection?”-Two errors: 1. Evolution describes the way in which organisms change over succeeding generations, and thus says nothing about the origin of life. And 2. Life didn’t arise from nothing; it arose from the processes of chemistry. I hope you can see how a self-reproducing molecule will tend to, you know, reproduce itself and spread.As long as we’re reviving older questions, here’s one from my sister:”Also, I challenge her to find a function for male nipples.” 8^)”I can understand why he drew them the way he did. What I can’t understand is why they are still in textbooks, which should present the truth as best we know it.”-Perhaps because of the next part of the quote, which you appear to have forgotten: “Regardless of any claim about tampering with the visuals of embryos over a century ago when Haeckel was working….there is abundant evidence from modern visualization techniques that Haeckel’s noting of embryonic similarity… across species is in fact empirically true.”Or perhaps because of the same reason that chemistry texts still show pictures of the plum-pudding model of the atom, despite its replacements having themselves been replaced by more accurate models. Having never seen Haeckel’s pictures in my texts, I can only theorize.You seem to be missing the point, in any case, that the choices made by textbook editors have no effect on the truth of science’s conclusions.”‘In other words, the only thing that’s happened is that the relative numbers of each have gone up and down.’Huh? So they haven’t evolved at all? So why do evolutionists like this example so much?”-Ooookay. ONE more time. The definition of evolution is the shift in allele frequences over time. This is *exactly* what happened with the peppered moths, which is *exactly* why evolutionists like it so much. Also, it was one of the first cases that people noticed evolution occurring in. If you want to see a complete shift, along the lines of the popular image of evolution, then you’d have had to keep the trees black until every last moth containing the genes for light wings had died out. Please remember that that process can take thousands or millions of years, depending the reproductive cycle of the species in question.”So where in a jellyfish or sponge (or whatever I am supposed to have evolved from) does one find the beginnings of a skeletal system?”-Without a skeletal fossil it’s hard to say, but I’d say some early chain of organisms, as its internal systems became more specialized, gained an advantage in reproduction due to rigid structures within itself that gave it access to more powerful forms of motion than, say, wriggling like a worm (or some other advantage; it doesn’t matter what specifically). Over time, those organisms that had structures better suited to movement through their environment were able to reproduce better, and eventually formed a separate population of organisms that had *evolved* skeletons. Jellyfish developed a strategy that didn’t require the sort of motion one can perform with a skleton, so pre-jellyfish with pre-skeletal rigid structures enjoyed no reproductive advantage.”A brain?”-A different specialization of structures led to nerve cells, allowing different parts of the body to communicate with each other efficiently. The nerves grew in slightly different patterns in different organisms. One advantageous structure included a cluster of nerves; some designs of organism with certain reproduction strategies were successful due to larger and more organized clusters; thence, brain.”I think those things are going to need a genesis!”-If you mean “an origin, creation, or beginning,” then of course they did! Everything that exists within this universe had a beginning. Just because you yourself don’t know the how of it doesn’t mean it can’t have happened.”And what is the probability of each one of these mutations?”-Irrelevant, that’s what. As Sherlock Holmes said (I paraphrase), once you have eliminated the impossible, then what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. The trick for a detective is in eliminating all the actual impossibles, but the point is that you can’t say that something never happened just because it’s unlikely! By that logic, nobody would ever win the lottery.”And what about the systems that are interdependent—both would have to evolve at the same time”-Precisely. You’re starting to understand. 8^) Consider, when you’re calculating the odds, that when interdependent things develop, you don’t multiply the probability of one by the probability for the other to get the probability of both happening together. Because they’re interdependent, each will influence the other as they develop. You could even say that the chance of such a system taking certain directions is more probable than that of an independent system. It’s like saying that I’m unlikely to walk through a doorway, because 1. I would need to enter a room AND 2. the door would need to open. But the chance of a door opening if I just wait for it is pretty low, eh? And the chance of me randomly floating into a room is pretty low. So the odds of me opening a door and walking in must be astronomically low, by your logic, right? 8^P”‘And all you need is *one* such [organic] molecule to be capable of causing its own replication’Which, though theoretically possible, hasn’t happened yet, right?”-Clearly it has, way back when. 8^P Let me put it this way, though. Go to a university and ask some organic chemists, experts in their field and far better able to judge than you or I – and make sure they’re actually organic chemists trained by scientists, not the sort of people who’re quoted in creationist magazines – ask them whether such a thing *could* occur. You can even ask them if they know the process by which it would be most likely to happen. If chemistry says that such a thing is possible, then can you accept that it could have happened at some point in Earth’s long history and set the ball of life rolling?Another interesting way to check: go find a source that talks about the possibility of us meeting alien life. They often estimate the odds of life-as-we-know-it arising on an appropriate planet. Check their sources.”But you said that everything had evolved upward.”-I hope I said nothing of the sort, since I’ve said repeatedly in the past that evolution being an “ascent” is a misconception. Evolution is about change – and everything definitely does change – without demanding any particular direction for it. After all, evolution has also produced animals that eat poop. Not much of an ascent, eh? 8^P”I’m trying to decide how men could have evolved from a [mitochondrion] without something, somewhere being added.”-You may want to read your own references:”Mitochondria have their own DNA and may, according to the endosymbiotic theory, be descended from free-living prokaryotes that were closely related to rickettsia bacteria.”In other words, we certainly didn’t evolve from them!To answer the essence of your question, though: Lots of things were added. For example, radiation and other external influences have caused mutations. Back in the early days of barely-life, a random molecule coming along and interacting with the organic molecule in question could have dramatically changed its behavior. I don’t mind if you say that the radiation and the molecules came along because God wanted them to. I would say that they came along because God allowed them to (a fine distinction that ultimately ties into the Free Will issue). But the fact remains that it was a natural rather than a supernatural process.And even today, you can see remnants from everywhere along the chain. At the primordial end, there are preons and viruses – it’s not even clear whether we can call them alive, since all they are is bundles of chemicals (DNA or even just RNA) that replicate themselves. There are unicellular prokaryotic oranisms, lacking complex internal structures, and there are eukaryotic organisms with larger, better-organized cells, and with groups of cells living and working together as part of a larger organism. And so on throughout humanity’s phylogenetic tree.”You asked where it said [that God wanted His people to be dependant on Him]. There are so many places!”-Ah, a conflict of definitions. When I think “depend,” I think “To rely, especially for support or maintenance.” But this is clearly not the case, since some of God’s favored chosen (including Abraham and Moses!) challenge God’s dictates, and God got pretty fed up with our kvetching in Sinai. But you seem to mean “to rely; place trust,” since every one of your examples is about trusting God. That’s fine. *BUT* us having super-eyes and -ears wouldn’t affect our ability to trust in God, so your argument becomes self-contradictory.”The entire Exodus from Egypt is all about God’s people learning to depend on Him. It really wasn’t such a terribly long journey, but it was 40 years before God allowed them to enter the promised land. And all that time, they were supposed to be learning to follow Him. Needless to say, it’s a hard lesson to learn.”-OK, *now* I’m angry. If you were to read the Bible you would find that the forty years in the desert were a consequence of the people’s hesitation to enter Canaan, not a period of waiting until they “learned to follow.” It says this explicitly. And the Exodus isn’t about “learning to depend;” it’s being a witness to the glory and power of God. It’s God saying “This is why you should believe that what I’m about to give you is worth your time.”God knows that blind faith is far inferior to actual evidence, and Exodus demonstrates this. 8^)”Oh, by the way, I looked up cherry-picking, and you are. We all do. We find the examples that best suit our position and quote those.”-Except that there’s a difference between giving examples, and giving examples that fail to jive with what’s indicated by all the data you didn’t choose. ^_^”People have gotten taller on average, (and fatter, too, but that’s another story.)”-Ironically, both of these are largely (ha ha) due to changes in our diet and living conditions over the past few centuries.”The part of “evolution” that I am contesting is only the part that says that all things evolved from simple organisms to more and more complex ones,”-If you accept that small changes occur over time, why can’t you accept that small changes accumulate into large ones?”I believe that science enhances our understanding of God, and that it will always mesh perfectly with Scripture”-In other words, you’ve decided to agree with me, instead of continuing to claim that proof and facts and reality are meaningless in the face of faith? That didn’t even take billions of years! 8^)”I realize you will scoff at this statement, C, but remember that I consider evolution (of all life from nothing) to be a religion. “-I’m not so much going to scoff as stare in amazement. You can’t be serious. Other than the basic one common to all humanity, science requires no leaps of faith. It invests itself in no supernatural beings. It demands no ritual practices. Science is no more a religion than math is. Science is no more a religion than driving a car is. Science is far less a religion than football is, and football’s just a freaking game. Humanism you could maybe make an argument for, although I’d call it a philosophy or a system of ethics rather than a religion, but science? Vey.Just to make sure I’m being absolutely clear, here’s a dictionary defition of religion: “1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.”…But science is all about the *natural* forces governing this universe, and while science speculates about the manner of the universe’s beginning, the wherefores are essentially considered irrelevant, since that which is outside the universe can’t be measured from within. So calling science a religion must be a joke. Please.”So if I have ten different people X-ray my mouth and verify that my upper left wisdom tooth has been removed, does that make it Truth?”-That’s impossible. If these ten people were scientific, then you could only have them verify that the tooth is not there. They could then study the site where it would normally be, and try to draw conclusions about why it isn’t. Science, unlike your faith, avoids presupposing results. ^_^”They don’t have the background information that they need to make an accurate claim.”-The problem is that real scientists wouldn’t make such a claim. You’re creating a false premise, and thus, your argument is invalid.”‘Me: And if you can’t reproduce and verify the results, is it really science?”Confanity: Your error is in choosing the wrong thing to reproduce and verify’You lost me. What are we supposed to be doing?”-Science is at times like history. When you study history, you don’t need to get in a time machine and go back and watch everything happen everywhere and then write your books about it. You study evidence. Just so, in science: if multiple independent sources study available evidence and arrive at compatible conclusions, this is verification. You don’t need to cut every human in the world open in order to conclude that we all have stomachs and livers.”In the field of evolution, there is no pre-existing information that would make the claims consistent.”-The “pre-existing information” for all research in any discipline is nothing more or less than the body of facts waiting to be found. Evolutionary science has no less “pre-existing information” than a crime scene; a scientist works according to the same process whether in biology or forensics: gather evidence, study it, and draw conclusions, aided by information that has been gathered in the past in other fields (chemistry etc.)Perhaps this is a good time to bring in your further discussion of the teeth. If you were a blind deaf mute, the dentists could still study your gums and determine with very high levels of accuracy why the absence occurred. Science doesn’t need someone sitting around with the right answers!”The point being that if you’re going to base a claim of horse evolution on horse skeletons, those skeletons ought to exist. Where are they?”-MY point is that just because they’re not strolling around right in front of you doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You’ve got the page and the references; find them yourself. Go on a field trip if you want to stare at them in person. Ask to touch them, Thomas, if you suspect that they’re fake wax bones someone invented as part of the millennia-old grand conspiracy that Greek scientists set in motion before Christianity was even invented. Sheesh.”I ought to tell you how much that amused me. I’ve never been cussed in Yiddish before!”-Cussed? The term is from the Hebrew, and it means “a female gentile.” You can take that as a curse if you want, but I’d never pegged you for a bitter orthodox Jew. 8^PI should apologize for “uneducated.” Yes, there’s a lot to be learned, but the term is a loaded one and a better word would probably have sufficed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s