If evolution is true.....

[Happy Evolute]

creationism is implied by a prior belief in a creator,

Yup, completely circular.

[kevin]

the previously established existence of a farmer implies the existence of a farm.

that is not a circle, and is what i am asserting.

were i to go into the country side and say, look, i *believe* this ground is a farm, therefore farmers exist, hence this piece of ground is being farmed, then that would be a circle.

but you're the only one who sees that argument being made.

move on, HE. stupid is boring.

[Happy Evolute]

the previously established existence of a farmer implies the existence of a farm.

that is not a circle, and is what i am asserting.

were i to go into the country side and say, look, i *believe* this ground is a farm, therefore farmers exist, hence this piece of ground is being farmed, then that would be a circle.

Yes, kevin, that is the argument being made by creationists.

"I believe that this universe was created, therefore there is a creator, therefore, since there is a creator this universe was created." There is no previously established existence of a creator, unlike a farmer (or a watchmaker).

but you're the only one who sees that argument being made.

Really? In that case I need to shout louder.

[kevin]

HE, if you want to associate with creationists, go find them. nobody here is making the argument you want to debate.

scat.

[Case]

alright, i have another question.

i was reading about ragweed the other day. where i live there are two different species. common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida. so even though these two species coexist now, they must have been isolated from one another in the past, correct?

[Happy Evolute]

HE, if you want to associate with creationists, go find them. nobody here is making the argument you want to debate.

the previously established existence of a farmer implies the existence of a farm.

that is not a circle, and is what i am asserting.

... this is how creationism must work if it is to be in acvordance with scripture. fossils, and coal, and oil, and natursl gas,  and rivers, and mountsins, and the hydrogrologic cycle, and partially decayed radiometric vlocks, and tree rings, and stsrs appsrently half way through their billion year life times, and the universe psrtiallyexpanded, and the ssteroid belt, and on and on.

This is the argument of the creationists which you are claiming is reasonable and that "non-believers" don't understand. Why would an non-believer not understand that an argument is circular? Perhaps it is you who fails to see the circle?

scat.

Shan't.

[Argyle]

alright, i have another question.

i was reading about ragweed the other day. where i live there are two different species. common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida. so even though these two species coexist now, they must have been isolated from one another in the past, correct?

When you start talking about plants we get into a much different area. Many plants can cross pollenate with their close relatives to create hybrids, and are therefore not "species" in the strictest sense. Also many plant species such as orchids are in a symbiosis with a pollenating insect such that while if they were pollenated by another orchid variety they might produce a hybrid offspring either the resulting orchid would be unable to attract the pollenating insect, or would be as much less efficient at doing so as to slowly remove it from the genetic pool.    Similarly changes in climate can separate plant variety by causing those segments of the gene pool unable to deal with the new climate in an area to die off, while those members of that variety existing on a nearby mountain may survive quite well due to the difference in elevation. When you are talking about "isolation" you have to realize it takes a great many forms, and evolutionary biologists are aware of this. I would write more (as this is far from a complete accounting of even the general ways a plant can be isolated) but I have to run. I'll add more when I have time, assuming someone doesn't beat me to it.

[Cyberia]

The problem with Lastthursdayism isn't rocks and fossils, it's people.

If the world was created last Thursday, then there are people in jail for crimes they didn't commit.  What's even worse is that those people (and people not in jail as well) have memories of committing crimes/sins they didn't actually commit.  That's worse than lying or deception.  Furthermore it does make god answerable to us, or at least those people, without any hubris.  We can then judge Him based on His answer.

I suspect that part about judging god isn't included in Creationist thinking, nevertheless it is true.

[kevin]

alright, i have another question.

i was reading about ragweed the other day. where i live there are two different species. common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida. so even though these two species coexist now, they must have been isolated from one another in the past, correct?

if these two species are descended from a common ancestor, and if they are genuinely separate biological species, then the theory is that there was some sort of separation. this is either allopatric speciation, in which they are geographically isolated, or some other mechanism of sympatric speciation, where differentiation takes place without geographic sseparation. argyle has pointed some of these out. the key is a restriction of gene flow somehow, because if there is panmixic mating, then there won't be a differentiation to separate the two lines from each other. without a separation of gene pools, you won't get the lines moving apart, either from selection, or from sort of random drift.

sky islands are interesting examples of microseparation. in the pleistocene, arizona was conifer forest all over the place. with the end of th eice ages and the drying of the climate, those zones shrank and retreated up the mountains. today, pleistocene conditions are found only  above 10,000 feet on mountaintops, and the plants and anmals that used to be together are separated by miles of low elevation desert that they cannot cross. lots of organisms isolated in this way tend to diverge into subspecies and presumably species over time. oceaniuc islands are simlar, as in the galapagos. i've seen it in toad coloration in islands in artificial lakes in oklahoma.

[kevin]

The problem with Lastthursdayism isn't rocks and fossils, it's people.

If the world was created last Thursday, then there are people in jail for crimes they didn't commit.  What's even worse is that those people (and people not in jail as well) have memories of committing crimes/sins they didn't actually commit.  That's worse than lying or deception.  Furthermore it does make god answerable to us, or at least those people, without any hubris.  We can then judge Him based on His answer.

I suspect that part about judging god isn't included in Creationist thinking, nevertheless it is true.

in christian mythology, the world wasn't created last thursday, with people holding memories of pasts that didn't really occur.

genesis records the creation of the world long ago without people at all, who arrived later and made their own behavioral choices. lastthursdayism is mostly used to explain the appearance of intermediate age in nonliving features and processes.

[Garja]

And thats fine Kevin, if that works for you - have at it.  However with no logical reason to believe that uniformitarianism DOESN'T extend back indefinitely, there is not reason to not believe that.  There is no evidence to suggest that it doesn't that I am aware of other than a theists desire to make it so.

As ive stated on here before.  IF you believe that we were created by God, and IF you believe that god is good, and IF you believe we were created to know god, and IF you believe we were created in the image of god - then it stands to reason that god would behave in such a way that seems logical to us.  Otherwise it looks like god is just playing mind games.  It seems very contradictory to accept a god that gives us these abilities to reason and to understand evidence to deduce fact to give us standards to be able to understand "truth" from "fiction" - then operate entirely outside those standards.

Its admittedly reductionist, but it stands.  Either your god is a d**k, or he does not exist.  Those are the only two viable options that I can see.

[kevin]

You know, garja, the argument that god does not exist because he does not conformo to a non - believer's aesthetic sense is one of the oldest fallacies that can be applied to the question.

"s**t stinks, therefore it should not exist."

In my opinion, god has given me sufficient reason to believe in his existence.if this is not enough for you, that's okay. You have never heard me argue for the existence of god in this forum. You have never hear me state that what I believe should be good enough for you , or for anybody else.

If god does not meet your expectations for what god should be, that's unfortunate. I did not meet  the expectations of my first wife for what a husband should be, but there I was nonetheless.

I don't find god a d**k, because I haven't made a god up in my own head to judge him by, as you have. I look for what is, and accept reality for what it is, and try to understand it as it is. Being annoyed because the world isn't the way I'd like it to be is something I got over a long time ago.

[Garja]

The issue is, what you are calling "reality", isn't actually supported by the evidence.  You have no reason to believe that uniformitarinism doesn't extend back indefinitely other than your desire to not believe that.  There is precisely zero evidence to suggest otherwise yet you persist in your belief.  Thats cool and all, but Im not going to pretend that I think your belief is valid.

I get why you say thats a fallacy, and maybe it is.  But to me is perfectly reasonable to expect a benevolent god that WANTS us to know him, to behave in ways that mesh with reality, evidence, and human logic.  Otherwise one has to ask why in the world he would create us in such a way as to make him (and only him*) completely outside our logical understanding.


*not a hard statement

[Alkan]

Right. That sounds interesting. Where did the Uzbeks evolve their skin color from? If it were to be Iran I'm sure that's a hot country. Mongolia perhaps?

The pigmentation actually might not be so related to vitamin D as was previously thought:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630140836.htm

Now, if scientists evaluated scientific claims like you did, they'd immediately reject it. But, science is evidence based, so real, physical evidence is the only thing that actually matters.

Just because you can't comprehend the evidence doesn't mean that it isn't there. You know, I'm going to challenge you to actually try to understand evolution, accept it or reject it. I bet you won't be able to simultaneously understand it and reject it.

[Gnu Ordure]

Alkan, CD was a troll. He didn't come here for any kind of discussion, just to wind people up. His karma count is evidence of that.

Having failed to wind anyone up, and having been informed (with particular incisiveness by Mooby, if I remember correctly) that his trolling was essentially boring, he seems to have withdrawn.

Which is a good thing.

Trust me on that.

[kevin]

The issue is, what you are calling "reality", isn't actually supported by the evidence.  You have no reason to believe that uniformitarinism doesn't extend back indefinitely other than your desire to not believe that.  There is precisely zero evidence to suggest otherwise yet you persist in your belief.  Thats cool and all, but Im not going to pretend that I think your belief is valid.

garja, why do you keep not reading what i write?

first, i've already said several times that i don't look for proof of god's existence and of his hand in the creation. i have already established the exsistence of god and his role in the world elsewhere. because that is already established, it becomes a premise in any logical deductions about the age of the earth and the manner of its origin. the fact that more than one explanation fits the observed facts about the earth is irrelevant when one or more of the explanations has been excluded by reasoning elswhere.

second, i'm not a creationist. i don't believe the earth is recently created. i consider genesis to be christian mythology, and the earth to be in the vicinity of 4.65 billion years old, along with the rest of the solar system. i've said this repeatedly, but you're in such a hurry to disagree with creationism you don't notice that i've said it.

I get why you say thats a fallacy, and maybe it is.  But to me is perfectly reasonable to expect a benevolent god that WANTS us to know him, to behave in ways that mesh with reality, evidence, and human logic.  Otherwise one has to ask why in the world he would create us in such a way as to make him (and only him*) completely outside our logical understanding.

*not a hard statement

he's not outside our logical understanding. i understand him just fine, in this context. the difference between you and me is that you are demanding that the evidence conform to certain aesthetic preferences that you hold as part of your own philosophy, but which are not at all necessary. you're excluding certain kinds of evidence and complaining that the remaining evidence is insufficient to prove the point to your satisfaction.

i don't have an answer for you, garja. i see the world differently from you, based on conclusions that i have derived from my own personal experience. without that experience, you won't have the evidence you need, and with your mindset the way it is, i don't think you would accept the evidence if you got it.

[Garja]

first, i've already said several times that i don't look for proof of god's existence and of his hand in the creation

It just seems to me, that if God was going to do something, then communicate how and why he did something - that that account would be accurate, logical, and supported by evidence .  I honestly dont think thats a terribly high bar.

I was actually pretty confused by what you've seemed to be arguing.  I never thought you were a creationist (particularly of the young-earth variety), yet you seemed to be pushing for some pretty unfounded beliefs that some of them have.

i don't think you would accept the evidence if you got it.

Unfounded generalization.  I assure you that if you presented evidence that proved me wrong, or strongly corroborated a theistic world view - I would reevaluate my position.  I cant prove this to you, but based on MY personal experiences, I tell you it's true.

[ChristianDamien]

Evolution is BULLSHI*T!