If evolution is true.....

[ChristianDamien]

Then why can't I see it happening today? Why aren't we humans evolving today?

Why can't I see animals evolving today?

How can people believe this bullsh*t?

[Emily]

Do you see your grass growing? One day your grass is super short and it doesn't need to be cut. Give it a week or two and you need to bring out the lawnmower. You can't see it growing, but it does grow. This picture here is a pretty good explanation of evolution:



Read that entire picture. Every word of it. By the end you'll (hopefully) understand how evolution works.

Have you ever gotten a flu shot? If not, do you know anyone who has? Why do flu vaccines come out every year? The flu virus evolves from year to year to be tolerant of the vaccination from year to year.

In terms of macro-evolution, the main difference is time scale. If it was possible for one person or a group of people to witness something happening every day over the course of a couple thousand to a million years, evolution would be witnessed.

Also, the evolutionary process does slow down to the point where genetic material no long is able to mutate into new genetic code. A good example would be with homo-sapien-sapiens (humans).

[ChristianDamien]

But I can still see the process happening, and if not I am at least aware it's happening. Not a valid point.

[Emily]

But I can still see the process happening, and if not I am at least aware it's happening. Not a valid point.

I know we just met, and I don't mean to be a b***h but I have a question for you. How far back do you plan on moving the goal posts?

[ChristianDamien]

Not a b***h at all. As far as they can go I suppose.

[Emily]

Well then, my second post stands on its own merit then. I gave you an example of how both micro- and macro-evolution works.

What evidence would you accept as evolution being true? If you want to be able to actually see it happening, then you're going to be waiting for a long time because evolution takes several biological generations to occur even on the micro level.

[ChristianDamien]

I am aware that my ancestors looked like humans. How far back do I have to go for this, 35,000 years? isn't that enough time to see some sort of evolution occurring? Or perhaps back in the cavemen days, but I suppose even that isn't long enough to see any evolution happening.

[Emily]

If you really want to seriously understand human evolution and why it seems to not be occurring in the way you think it should you should read about punctuated equilibrium.

[ChristianDamien]

Oh so it takes millions of years. I guess scientists and atheists love pushing things further. And then make up a load of bulls**t about how it all happened.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Lactose persistence evolved in the last 5,000-10,000 years and is still evolving today in various levels around the globe.

Human ancestors started about 6-8 million years ago and modern humans showed up around 250,000 years ago. So yes, the entire process took a few million years.

[ChristianDamien]

Can you explain how some people can have white skin in a hot sunny country? I have friends from Uzbekistan and other parts of asia, they are whiter than me and probably you too. But they come from extremely hot and warm climate countries where you can't avoid constant exposure to sun. How come they are still so white?

This is all part of Gods creation.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Yes, that is easily explainable.

Human skin color began evolving about 2 million years ago, with most modern coloring evolving about 20,000-30,000 years ago. Per Wiki some sources say European skin may have still been evolving as recent as 6,000 years ago.

Most of the world's settlements and conquests happened in the past few thousand years. The US is mostly white because the Europeans moved in and kicked out the Native Americans. Australia is white because the British developed it as a penal colony and ignored the Aboriginals. Pretty much all of Eastern Europe and Western Asia has been invaded at some point by the Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, and Russians, often multiple times.

Uzbekistan was first settled about 3,000 years ago by Iranians, and has been invaded several times by several different people since then. The people living in Uzbekistan today did not evolve skin color there; their ancestors evolved their skin color elsewhere and then moved in afterward.

[ChristianDamien]

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?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

The Uzbeks did not evolve their skin color. They migrated there from other countries. It is called "travel."

[ChristianDamien]

Oh sorry I didn't know what travel was.

I meant which countries did they migrate? And were they cold countries?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Depends on the century. Most recent was Russia, which is generally considered cold.

[ChristianDamien]

There are over 1 million Russians in Uzbekistan. I wasn't talking about them.

I was talking about Turkic ones, many are pale as f**k despite living there for centuries.

Evolution sucks c**k stop trying to justify it.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

"Centuries" is too short a timeline, pigment evolved thousands of years ago per my earlier post.

[ChristianDamien]

Thousands of years you could say too.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Pigment evolved thousands of years before the Ukraine was ever settled, per my earlier post.

[ChristianDamien]

You still don't get it.

[Augusto]

LMAO +1...!

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

You still don't get it.

Then you need to explain it properly.

[urs]

It should be noted that once agriculture was developed and we could settle down in shelters and remain fully clothed more and more of the time, there would have been less need for darker skin. Manipulating our environment certainly has an effect on which genes get selected for. And as Mooby said, the near constant migration of humans has moved gene pools all over, never mind that the climate in many places has changed over the last several thousand years, forcing migrations that tended towards reducing selection pressures.

Regardless, however, humans still have very little genetic variation amongst ourselves compared to other species. And our genetic relationship with apes is stronger than mentioned; we share a substantial portion of our DNA with chimps and bonobos. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Unfortunately, I have likely wasted my time here. I have noticed more and more, especially since I started dealing with many aspects of my business online (and hence, through text), that people simply do not read. Or they read, but they skim or don't really comprehend much of what they are reading. I know my ability to communicate is typically average to above average, so the burden of comprehension cannot be entirely on me. This is part of what inspired me to start making videos in addition to writing - maybe people will understand those better. But then again...maybe not. I have to keep in mind that the average IQ being 100 means that roughly half the population's IQ is in the double digits, and there's also that whole pesky Downing effect.

Carry on.

[ChristianDamien]

You're right. Many people skim read. I took the time to read all your post. This is a forum not eBay darling.

If skin color is all about climate. Then why is it that in countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and some parts of Pakistan - there exist many people with white skin? No, they don't look European either, some will have families with majority dark skin siblings, but one of them will have white skin (no albino), why is this? Their ancestors have been living there for thousands of years, and have been constantly exposed to the sun, yet they are as white as Europeans. Since they live in hot and sunny countries, what was the need for their skin to be light? In case you think they stay indoors all day, that's not true either. Even one hour of sun exposure everyday can eventually change your skin color.

Of course, when migration took a step forward into cold countries, it would make sense that their skin becomes lighter due to colder climate and less sun. But that's not what I'm talking about. Why is it in hot countries, where ancestors have settled down for thousands of years, are they still white?

How do you explain this:


Light skinned man from the hot country of Uzbekistan. Nope he's not European, clearly looks Asian.

Even I get tanned when I'm on a holiday.

All of this proves that God created everything his own way, he created humans and animals in all the beautiful forms, shapes, sizes and colors. It has nothing to do with evolution.

[ChristianDamien]

Looks like the two of you have given up.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Christian urs?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

No one's giving up, you're just saying the same thing over and over again and annoying the obvious point.

Skin pigment evolved thousands of years ago, when humans were migrating at a much slower rate.  It was most likely a loss of pigment for those in colder climates rather than a gaining of pigment for those in warmer climates.

Over the past few thousand years, humans have been migrating at much higher rates, and this is happening faster than skin pigment evolution.  In addition, human skin overall has become less and less important for survival as most humans around the world have been covering most of their skin for a while now.  In other words, skin pigment evolution is pretty irrelevant nowadays, and has been irrelevant for the last several thousand years.

IF

   
• Humans stopped migrating
• Skin pigment started being important for survival again
• Sun exposure became relevant again: i.e. we stop living in buildings all day
• Suntan lotion gets uninvented
• Humans stopped taking skin color into consideration for sexual selection

Then maybe in 50,000 years or so skin pigments would evolve again.  But that's not going to happen any time in the future, because:

   
• Travel technology makes migration ridiculously easy compared to 30,000 years ago
• Human survival is really not all that dependent on the natural environment anymore
• Sun exposure is becoming increasingly irrelevant as much fewer people work outside all day as compared to 30,000 years ago
• Suntan lotion exist
• Humans take skin color into consideration for sexual selection

So, as it stands, there is basically zero evolutionary force driving skin pigment to match any given climate.  Skin color variation is just variation to us, and it's been that way for the past few thousand years.  Once civilization developed, a lot of traits just stopped mattering for evolution, and this was one of them.

And really, even if the first 4 bullet points were met, skin pigment still wouldn't evolve again because of #5.  We've reached the point where human social behavior overrides natural evolutionary forces.  Natural selection assumes random mating, and humans haven't mated randomly for a long, long time.

[ChristianDamien]

"So, as it stands, there is basically zero evolutionary force driving skin pigment to match any given climate."

Great.

[Augusto]

Look, evolution could be faster / more visible if wasn't because people are not choosing their couple based in the weather. People buy clothes to protect from the weather and choose skin color based in other things... being white is asociated with high class, better opportunities and money.

Dogs and chicken have evolved pretty fast in various directions and the change is visible if you compare them using pictures from 100 years ago or something, because their reproduction is controlled.

[ChristianDamien]

being white is asociated with high class, better opportunities and money.

Only if your natural skin tone is white. If not, you can stay indoors all you like and still be dark.

[Augusto]

I don't follow.

[ChristianDamien]

If a person is born with light skin, their skin may darken due to sun exposure. And therefore staying indoors would preserve their natural skin tone. That's a valid point.

In many Asian countries (China, korea etc) it is claimed that white skin is due to being high class and therefore staying indoors. However, that depends on a person's natural skin tone. If you are born with dark skin and remain that way, it wouldn't make any difference staying indoors or outdoors, your skin will still be dark.

[Augusto]

You gotta be careful with those kind of comments. The smite you got was not from me, but it serves as a reminder that societies are really trying to overcome the racial stigma.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Tanning really depends on your skin tone. If you are really fair skinned, you tend to freckle more than tan. Though tanning is a bit tangential to the discussion.

[ChristianDamien]

You gotta be careful with those kind of comments. The smite you got was not from me, but it serves as a reminder that societies are really trying to overcome the racial stigma.

There was no racial stigma intended.

[Augusto]

I believe you... my comment was just me thinking of the reason you might have got that smite.

[Garja]

If a person is born with light skin, their skin may darken due to sun exposure. And therefore staying indoors would preserve their natural skin tone. That's a valid point.

In many Asian countries (China, korea etc) it is claimed that white skin is due to being high class and therefore staying indoors. However, that depends on a person's natural skin tone. If you are born with dark skin and remain that way, it wouldn't make any difference staying indoors or outdoors, your skin will still be dark.

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

[ChristianDamien]

If a person is born with light skin, their skin may darken due to sun exposure. And therefore staying indoors would preserve their natural skin tone. That's a valid point.

In many Asian countries (China, korea etc) it is claimed that white skin is due to being high class and therefore staying indoors. However, that depends on a person's natural skin tone. If you are born with dark skin and remain that way, it wouldn't make any difference staying indoors or outdoors, your skin will still be dark.

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

So you don't even want to educate yourself?

[ChristianDamien]

Educating yourself about bulls**t? Depends.

[Emily]

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

Awesome forum, BTW. 

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

Comments like this bother me. Basically, it's a complete admission that you don't even want to try to begin learning about the most basic aspects of evolution. It's a shame.

So, CD. What will it take to begin to educate you on what evolution has to say? Not that you have to accept evolution, but what the theory of evolution is and also what it isn't Lets play a game: We give you links -> you read the links and try your hardest to understand what evolution is -> you ask questions -> we reply -> you make up your own mind. Not to try to convince you, btut to at least try to get you to understand it better.

Agreed?

[Emily]

Educating yourself about bulls**t? Depends.

I love learning about stuff I don't agree with. It's fun. Try it sometime. You might learn something.

[kevin]

how can you know something is wrong until you know what it is?

i have this conversation frequently.

[ChristianDamien]

My karma ratio proves that I am enlightened.

[none]

My karma ratio proves that I am enlightened.

ha, what are you gonna do when your post count is 665?

[ChristianDamien]

Karma ratio. Not posts.

[ChristianDamien]

You have a deep misunderstanding of evolution.

Please watch some of the videos, read some of the articles here http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php?topic=10712.0

Not trying to be a jerk, but at this point you aren't even wrong.

Awesome forum, BTW. 

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

Comments like this bother me. Basically, it's a complete admission that you don't even want to try to begin learning about the most basic aspects of evolution. It's a shame.

So, CD. What will it take to begin to educate you on what evolution has to say? Not that you have to accept evolution, but what the theory of evolution is and also what it isn't Lets play a game: We give you links -> you read the links and try your hardest to understand what evolution is -> you ask questions -> we reply -> you make up your own mind. Not to try to convince you, btut to at least try to get you to understand it better.

Agreed?

I have already had my questions answered by Mooby on the recent topic.

Appreciate the invite though.

[Case]

@Emily ooh i have a question!

With all the selective breeding we humans have done over the last several thousand years, why have we not created any new species?

[kevin]

we have.

[Case]

really? like what?

[Emily]

It's my understanding that speciation states that if you breed two subspecies (both within the same species) together, you'll get another subspecies. Like what animal breeders do. So, there's Species A - a dog, Subspecies B and Subspecies C. B and C are all part of the dog species and they are able to interbreed with each other. But if Subspecies B and Subspecies C are isolated from each other over many generations, as mutations within both subspecies genes occur it'll get to the point where the two will never be able to interbreed, and then a species has been created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Here's an example take from the wiki link above:

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[26] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[27][28]

[kevin]

case, to answer your question, i need to know what you think a species is.

is a species a population of interfertile organisms reproductively isolated from other such populations?

is a species a population of organisms distinguished by morphology from the others?

we've bred laboratory populations of fruit flies and beetles that fit the first definition, if i recall correctly, and speciation has been done with radishes and primroses. and dogs and pigeons and so forth fit the second.

[Garja]

No thanks keep your bulls**t to yourself.

There in lies the reason why your beliefs will be dead by the end of the century.  When you are not only ignorant of science (excusable), but cherish that ignorance (inexcusable) ... Lets just say it doesn't speak well of the validity of your core argument.

[Garja]

Awesome forum, BTW. 

I know right?

[ChristianDamien]

Ok I have a question:

If evolution is a proven fact (like some claim), why is it rejected by many respectable scientists across the world?

[Emily]

Ok I have a question:

If evolution is a proven fact (like some claim), why is it rejected by many respectable scientists across the world?

Appeal to popularity, much? There is not enough information to answer this question. What we need to know are who these scientists are and what their field of study is, and if possible where they got their PhD, and who their doctoral advisor was.

Do you have a list?

[ChristianDamien]

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

And there are probably millions more.

You don't seriously believe all scientists accept evolution, do you?

[Emily]

You don't seriously believe all scientists accept evolution, do you?

Did I ever say this, or imply it?

But, I guess I'll give you credit. However, Discovery.org is a laughing stock, IMO, and that "Darwin Ad" is a complete joke. It screams out as completely unprofessional and has all the appearances of a "hey, look at these people who don't agree with evolution. YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER!"

But either way, does a list of scientists not agreeing with evolution mean evolution is false, given how there are just as many and perhaps more scientists who do agree with it?

Keep in mind that there are both climatologists who disagree with global warming, as well as climatologists who do agree with climate change. Same with cosmologists who agree with the big bang, and those who don't.

And another thing, some of the scientists are that list aren't even biologists. Some are theologians. Some are psychiatrists. Some are computer scientists. I would go to a computer scientists for advice with C++ programming, but I wouldn't go to a computer scientist for advice as to why my eye sight is so poor.

[ChristianDamien]

Not a fan of discovery.org and neither knew it was a laughing stock. Also, majority beliefs do not always equal truth. Once upon a time most believed the earth was flat.

Perhaps I will be back with a list of biologists who reject evolution. Stay tuned.

[kevin]

the abounding joy website uses definitions of evolution that no evolutionist would agree with. see their definitions page.

the list of scientistsand their comments about evolution is flawed. many of the comments are disputing darwinian gradualism, which is not considered accurate by the modern evolutionists who have refined darwin's crude model.

[ChristianDamien]

Kevin, as a Christian you accept evolution?

[Emily]

Not a fan of discovery.org and neither knew it was a laughing stock. Also, majority beliefs do not always equal truth. Once upon a time most believed the earth was flat.

And look how that turned out.

Discovery is a laughing stock because (it seems) the only other alternative to Darwinian evolution is creation. Even if Darwinian evolution is to be proven 100% false by all biologists tomorrow that doesn't mean that creationism is correct. Discovery.org seems to think ONLY
creationism is correct. They offer no scientific evidence for their claims.

Perhaps I will be back with a list of biologists who reject evolution. Stay tuned.

Cool beans. I just hope there is no quote mining going on. For example. None of this (look at the bottom of that comment. And for reference, read this wiki)

[kevin]

i certainly do accept the theory of evolution, cd.

i'm both an evolutionary biologist and micropaleontologist by training, so i am keenly aware of the science and reasoning behind the theory of evolution.

as an enlightened christian, you will understand that depending upon the bible is untrustworthy due to its errors and editing. so accepting the creation account of genesis is unnecessary.

[Case]

case, to answer your question, i need to know what you think a species is.

is a species a population of interfertile organisms reproductively isolated from other such populations?

is a species a population of organisms distinguished by morphology from the others?

we've bred laboratory populations of fruit flies and beetles that fit the first definition, if i recall correctly, and speciation has been done with radishes and primroses. and dogs and pigeons and so forth fit the second.

okay. let me try to rephrase this (and i'm not a scientist so excuse me if i'm wording things clumsily). so according to the theory of universal common descent all different organisms on the planet come from a single organism. but cats, say, cannot interbreed with dogs, even though they share a common ancestor. so at what point does one group of organisms become unable to breed with another group? and why haven't we replicated that in our own domestication of plants and animals? it would seem as if we've pushed dogs and some species of domesticated plants pretty far from how they existed before humans. but as far as i know one type of dog can still breed with any other type of dog, and broccoli still cross pollinates with cabbage. why would that be?

[ChristianDamien]

Not a fan of discovery.org and neither knew it was a laughing stock. Also, majority beliefs do not always equal truth. Once upon a time most believed the earth was flat.

And look how that turned out.

Discovery is a laughing stock because (it seems) the only other alternative to Darwinian evolution is creation. Even if Darwinian evolution is to be proven 100% false by all biologists tomorrow that doesn't mean that creationism is correct. Discovery.org seems to think ONLY
creationism is correct. They offer no scientific evidence for their claims.

Perhaps I will be back with a list of biologists who reject evolution. Stay tuned.

Cool beans. I just hope there is no quote mining going on. For example. None of this (look at the bottom of that comment. And for reference, read this wiki)

I disagree. Okay, you're an Atheist and you don't believe in a creator, therefore creationism is false.

How about a third possibility? When you speak of creationism, are you referring to the story of Genesis? Or general creation by means of a higher being altogether?

[Emily]

I disagree. Okay, you're an Atheist and you don't believe in a creator, therefore creationism is false.

How about a third possibility? When you speak of creationism, are you referring to the story of Genesis? Or general creation by means of a higher being altogether?

I speak of creationism referring to the story of Genesis. There very well could have been some higher power who did create the Universe. I am open to that possibility. However, when given a specific chain of creation events, like those told in Genesis, I don't agree with. As I told you in another thread I am open to the possibility of a higher power, whatever it is.

About the scientists not accepting evolution thing. Keep in mind that there is such a thing as scientific scepticism. It's not a bad thing at all. To deny evolution is OK in my opinion, as long as they can support why they deny it. But to deny evolution and say that a God created everything instead is not OK because the same reason they claim to deny evolution (their claim that there is no evidence), they haven't presented any evidence to support their claim of a creator.

[kevin]

@Case

you're using interfertility in your definition of species. this is a useful definition for some people, but you can see that its not useful to paleontologists or microbiologists. just sayin

there is usually a gradation between closely related groups of organisms within which the breeding definition doesnt work. horses can breed with donkeys, for instance, as tigers can breed with lions.yet these are separate species. theoffspring are viable but generally sterile.in nature species may be interfertile if vlosely related, and their designation ss one or a,other is somewhat arbitrary. this is natural, and occurs frequently among vertebrates such as frogs and toads. in the end, a species is defined as whatever a competent specialist in the field says it is.

nature is fluid within closely relatef groups. yet reproductive isolation can occur ovrrtime, and had been done in yhe lab with drosophila, flour bertles, algae, primrosez, brassicas (+1 gor knowing what a brassica is) and so on.

[kevin]

. . . Nd dogs are different enough in my opinionto merit separate species status within the groip. you cannot breed chihuahuas and danes, for instance. you can achieve genflow through intermedistes, but in nature they are reproductively isolated.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Ok I have a question:

If evolution is a proven fact (like some claim), why is it rejected by many respectable scientists across the world?

It's not.  The number who reject evolution is statistically insignificant, and the number who are "respectable" is far lower.

okay. let me try to rephrase this (and i'm not a scientist so excuse me if i'm wording things clumsily). so according to the theory of universal common descent all different organisms on the planet come from a single organism. but cats, say, cannot interbreed with dogs, even though they share a common ancestor. so at what point does one group of organisms become unable to breed with another group? and why haven't we replicated that in our own domestication of plants and animals?

Excellent questions.

In answer to the first, ability to breed is a continuum.  On one end of the spectrum, you have populations that breed freely and have fertile offspring at normal frequency.  On the other end, you have populations that cannot produce any offspring at all.  In the middle you have populations that interbreed less often than normal, or who produce offspring at lower frequency, or who theoretically can mate but just don't in the wild, or who can interbreed to make infertile hybrid offspring (mules, ligers, tigons, etc.)  It's not like an invisible switch is flipped and suddenly two populations can no longer breed.  Rather, by the time they can no longer breed, it's pretty safe to say that they haven't bred for a long time.

Secondly, we have not replicated the diversity of dogs and cats through domestication because dogs and cats split 42 million years ago, while domestication started about 10,000 years ago.  That's 4200 times as long.  If we keep at it for another 4199 times around, we will probably manage to make several new species.

It is also important to note that time alone does not cause a shift.  If a population changes together, the population will continue to breed.  To get speciation,[nb]The split of one species into two[/nb] you need selection that pulls the population in two different directions.

it would seem as if we've pushed dogs and some species of domesticated plants pretty far from how they existed before humans. but as far as i know one type of dog can still breed with any other type of dog, and broccoli still cross pollinates with cabbage. why would that be?

Dogs existed before humans as gray wolves.  Depending on your source, they are either a separate species from gray wolf or a subspecies.  So we have managed to create a subspecies.

Broccoli and cabbage are of the same species.

[Garja]

Every major creationist group has a statement of faith that essentially states : If evidence that does not support our world view is presented, we ignore that evidence.

This is the very definition of academic dishonesty.  This isn't the position of someone looking for what is true, its the position of someone is trying to assert TRUE, regardless of what the evidence says.

[eyeshaveit]

Every major creationist group has a statement of faith that essentially states : If evidence that does not support our world view is presented, we ignore that evidence.

This is the very definition of academic dishonesty.  This isn't the position of someone looking for what is true, its the position of someone is trying to assert TRUE, regardless of what the evidence says.

This is the position, of someone, who honors the Glory and Majesty of the Lord of Creation, the Holy God of Heaven and Earth, the Eternal LORD; and not one of his subjects; either a mortal philosopher or scientist.

[kevin]

no, it's the position of an idiot who ignores the wonders of god working in the creation and substitutes a fairy tale that god never intended.

[eyeshaveit]

no, it's the position of an idiot who ignores the wonders of god working in the creation and substitutes a fairy tale that god never intended.

Black and white - no gray bob-tailed nag for him.
No straddling the fence - the man puts all of his chips on Mom Nature - the last race on the card.
Baby needs a new pair of shoes - will she get a pair of Golden Slippers or a slick pair of Red Prada High Heels?

[Case]

@Case

you're using interfertility in your definition of species. this is a useful definition for some people, but you can see that its not useful to paleontologists or microbiologists. just sayin

there is usually a gradation between closely related groups of organisms within which the breeding definition doesnt work. horses can breed with donkeys, for instance, as tigers can breed with lions.yet these are separate species. theoffspring are viable but generally sterile.in nature species may be interfertile if vlosely related, and their designation ss one or a,other is somewhat arbitrary. this is natural, and occurs frequently among vertebrates such as frogs and toads. in the end, a species is defined as whatever a competent specialist in the field says it is.

nature is fluid within closely relatef groups. yet reproductive isolation can occur ovrrtime, and had been done in yhe lab with drosophila, flour bertles, algae, primrosez, brassicas (+1 gor knowing what a brassica is) and so on.

@kevin

Wiki says species "is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Then it goes on to explain difficulties with that definition. As I said, I'm not much of a scientist. I assumed the above definition without realizing it was at all debatable.

Most of my knowledge about species of domesticated plants comes from farm work i've done. i know brassicas, cucurbits, nightshades, alliums, in their domesticated forms and the wild species that can cross pollinate them. I'm fascinated that plants as diverse as cabbage, kale, collards, broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts, etc., are all considered to be the same species, Brassica oleracea. Are you saying the reason for this is because these plants have not been isolated enough from each other for an extended period of time? And that if they had been isolated for long enough that they would not be able to produce fertile offspring?

[kevin]

case, i was a systematist, which is the branch of biology that deals with species and classification. there's no one species ddfinition that works for evefybody. as a paleontologist, i couldnt test interfertility of extinct organisms. neither can a micobiologist, becauze protistans genereally reproduce asexually. inthe end, the simplest definition of species willbe those organisms that are physically similar. thats how they were all defined in the past.

cladistics isionly about 30 years old, and is mostly just morphology with assumptionthat physical, chemical, and genetic similarities rdflect a common ancestry. it does not prove common anceztry, it merely assumes that similar organisms are similar because they are relatef. its a premise,not a conclusion.

the  brassicas are a good example of a genus with species that are highly variable within the species. theyve been selected for lines that will breed true, but not necessarily to be intersterile. there is no breeding selection for intersterility, so those traits at cause it are free to drift randomly. maybe in many generations they will have drifted far enougb to be incompatible. maybe not. the key is that

gotta go

[Gnu Ordure]

maybe in many generations they will have drifted far enougb to be incompatible. maybe not. the key is that

gotta go

Kevin, you're such a tease.

[kevin]

i love you too

[kevin]

anyway, the key witb the domestic  brassicas is tbeyve mostly stayed interfertile because the breeders keepbackcrossing them to keep them that way.

in nature things like queen annes lace and carrots will eventually separate enough so that interbreeding becomes less and less successful
so the theory goes

gunson the surface bye

[kevin]

so after msny generationz and either sufficient drift or fixing of chsracters that incidentally made chromosomal recombination lethal or otherwise inhibited successful meiosis, you end up with reproductive isolation.

then you can call it a speciation event, if you haven't already done so based on divergent physical or biochemical or evdn bxhsvioral trait

[kevin]

this high tach telephone mskes me type like the monkey i am. maybe in a milloon years i wil accidentaly generate the cmplte works of shakespearel

[Garja]

Every major creationist group has a statement of faith that essentially states : If evidence that does not support our world view is presented, we ignore that evidence.

This is the very definition of academic dishonesty.  This isn't the position of someone looking for what is true, its the position of someone is trying to assert TRUE, regardless of what the evidence says.

This is the position, of someone, who honors the Glory and Majesty of the Lord of Creation, the Holy God of Heaven and Earth, the Eternal LORD; and not one of his subjects; either a mortal philosopher or scientist.

Really?  Really?  To say that "I believe this, and when ever any evidence contradicts that belief I will ignore it" is a good thing?  With a straight face, you can support that position?

[Case]

in nature things like queen annes lace and carrots will eventually separate enough so that interbreeding becomes less and less successful
so the theory goes

so what kind of evidence do we have that this does in fact happen in nature?

[Garja]

Look up "circular species" (I may be screwing up the term a little). There are examples of newts in California that SHOULD be able to reproduce, but can't.

[Gilgamesh]

Look up "circular species" (I may be screwing up the term a little). There are examples of newts in California that SHOULD be able to reproduce, but can't.

Garja, you're close! Ring Species.

[Garja]

Thank ya- I knew that didn't sound right.

[kevin]

i zlways called them "rassenkreis"

old school

[kevin]

so what kind of evidence do we have that this does in fact happen in nature?

pretty good evidence, actually

increases in genetic isolation are fairly common. st some point the separation merits being called s spdciation event

look up examples of speviation

[Case]

okay. thanks, i have a better understanding of evolution now.

[kevin]

it's a fascinating idea,and explains a great deal.

however, we can't go back into the past, and nothing in evolutionary theory or the fossil record is inconsistent with special creation, assuming the validty of lastthursdayism.

which i think is a logical necessity.

[Case]

what do you mean, kevin?

[kevin]

the coherence of evolutionary theory does not contradict special creation, any more than the coherence of geology and geophysics can contradict a young earth model.

the ideas are independent, and since there is no intersection between the sets, there is no common ground where one model can be compared and found incompatible with the other.

[Case]

i get what your saying.

you don't think anything from one model could contradict the other? what about fossils of things like dinosaurs or other prehistoric creatures? i find it hard to sync up young earth creationism with the existence of fossils. but i don't really know enough about it to fully discount it.

[kevin]

it's all inherent in a necessary aspect of special creation that scoffers call "lastthursdayism," case. you and i have discussed it, but i'd be happy to summarize the ideas again.

[Case]

i do remember talking about it. i can understand that if a mountain was created instantaneously it would appear to be very, very old. i'm just skeptical of the mountain thats created instantaneously already full of fossilized organisms. something has to give.

[kevin]

i do remember talking about it. i can understand that if a mountain was created instantaneously it would appear to be very, very old. i'm just skeptical of the mountain thats created instantaneously already full of fossilized organisms. something has to give.

i can understand that. in my case, i don't make such a clear distinction between living organisms and inorganic creations. to me, a complex geomorphological feature such as a meandering river, with its point bars, levees, oxbows, elevated bottom, sedimentary sequences and arrangements and so on is as comprehensively integrated as a living organism.

i'm not convinced i know the difference between lving and non-living, anyway, at very small or very large scales.

but think of that mountain. make it out of limestone, like the himalayas.

--if the mountain is limestone, then the limestone will show limestone characteristics.

--limestone is mostly organic in origin, and if you look at it closely, you will see that it is actually composed of bones, shells, teeth, seaweeds, corals, barnacles, plankton, and foraminifera, as well as oolites and inorganic crystals. the mountain itself is made of the fossils you would be looking for, case, and you can see these fossils in road cuts, highway gravel, railroad ballast, and in decorative cobbles at your local subway sandwich shop.

fossils don't exist as something separate, contained within the rocks like the fruit in jello. with limes and dolomites and marbles, the fossils are the rocks, and the rocks are the mountains.

this was brought home to me very clearly years ago while i was walking down a cobbled beach on an island in the baltic sea. i looked down at the rocks i was walking on, and realized that they weren't "rocks." the whole substrate was octopus pens, fragments of algal mats, broken corals, ostracods, pieces of broken up shells, and crinoids, and ammonites, and clams and oysters. there weren't any "rocks," because the rocks were all fossils.

so i don't see much difference between an old looking mountain and an old looking fossil. eithger indicates either great age or the instantaneous and necessary appearance of great age.

[Garja]

So, you feel it's consistent that god would have created (essentially) billions of carcasses in order to create sand, rocks, ect?

[kevin]

how would you have done it?

[Argyle]

how would you have done it?

If I were an all powerful all knowing deity?
Better than this. :)

*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

[none]

how would you have done it?

Form every man out of dirt... and every woman from their ribs..

[kevin]

how would you have done it?

If I were an all powerful all knowing deity?
Better than this. :)

*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

wdll, argyle, then what *is* the better way to make a rock?

how would you do it better?

what is *better?*

[Case]

kevin, are you an advocate of YEC?

[Argyle]

Better than this. :)
*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

well, argyle, then what *is* the better way to make a rock?

how would you do it better?

what is *better?*

I would appeal to a material teleology to define a better state than what exists. For example, currently the only known intelligent beings in the known universe are likely to die within a cosmically quick period of time, and occupy and are able to survive on only the most infinitesimal fraction of all creation. From a teleological perspective it would appear to me quite unfortunate that so few entities which can reason and appreciate the cosmos should be allowed to do so and for such a short amount of time, and that so much unnecessary harm should befall them as they do so.

If only by improving any one thing along those lines, for example allowing for easier interstellar travel, or having planets which would safely sustain such populations of knowers of the universe in equilibrium rather than constant struggle. Assuming of course we are talking about, as I said, an all knowing all powerful deity. Which I do not need to be in order to conclude that this is not the best of all possible worlds from the standpoint of material teleology.

You are of course welcome to disagree with my teleology, but that is what I meant :)

[kevin]

kevin, are you an advocate of YEC?

no, i think it strains credulity, assuming what i believe to be true about god is actually true about god.

but i acknowledge that YEC is untestable, and therefore there is no scientific process that can demonstrate its truth or falseness.

[kevin]

Better than this. :)
*waits for someone to accuse him of being arrogant*

well, argyle, then what *is* the better way to make a rock?

how would you do it better?

what is *better?*

I would appeal to a material teleology to define a better state than what exists . . .

i understand your interest in postulating a world conforming to the things you consider important: in increase in reasoning, aesthetics, and equilibrium, and a decrease in harm and struggle.

but focus on YEC for a moment.

what makes a better rock? garja questioned the consistency of god arranging that contemporary rocks be made out of organic debris, and fashioning rocks during the creation event that appeared as end products of that process, even though they weren't.

is one kind of rock a better rock than another?

[Argyle]

i understand your interest in postulating a world conforming to the things you consider important: in increase in reasoning, aesthetics, and equilibrium, and a decrease in harm and struggle.

but focus on YEC for a moment.

what makes a better rock? garja questioned the consistency of god arranging that contemporary rocks be made out of organic debris, and fashioning rocks during the creation event that appeared as end products of that process, even though they weren't.

is one kind of rock a better rock than another?

If that rock would lead the only species which is capable of appreciating the universe to draw incorrect conclusions about it? It would seem somewhat akin to lying to them wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be better to leave evidence which clearly directs them to a complete understanding of the universe and their place in it, rather than to leave many bedrock layers of lies to confuse them? Am I missing something?

[Garja]

how would you have done it?

I have no idea.  I cant say that it would have ever occurred to me to simultaneously create, kill, and fossilize billions and billions of microscopic (and otherwise tiny organisms) so that I could make rock..... seems like the long way around to me.... kinda silly.

[kevin]

If that rock would lead the only species which is capable of appreciating the universe to draw incorrect conclusions about it? It would seem somewhat akin to lying to them wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be better to leave evidence which clearly directs them to a complete understanding of the universe and their place in it, rather than to leave many bedrock layers of lies to confuse them? Am I missing something?

maybe you are missing something.

your interest in a better world is measured strictly in terms of a human perspective, and more specifically, of a perspective of intellectual query. there isn't anything in your measure that includes another point of view-- that of god, for instance--for whom human understanding of creation may not be particularly important. or that of other entities of the creation, less curious ones, for whom the act of existing is reward in itself--plants, less intelligent animals, and so on. or with humans, the created artist, so to speak, rather than the created enquirer.

so your point of view is highly specific to your own situation, and therefore somewhat peripheral to my question.

if one assumes that a "better" world is one in which a logical satisfaction of human curiosity is paramount, then your view of what god should have done in creating rocks is of course valid. because when looked at from within the limitations of a human point of view, rocks certainly do seem deceptive. if we apply a uniformatarian view to their provenance, then it's absurd to suppose that an outcrop of ancient fossiliferous limestone could have come about in any way different from what we see in modern fossliferous limestones in the process of lithification.

yet if one assumes or concludes a divine creation based on evidence other than modern analogues, then the rock's appearance of great age is inevitable. because modern rocks do form under these conditions, and mountains do form under these conditions. so if a created mountain is to maintain a structural continuity with naturally-formed mountains (which is the case in christian scripture) then there is no other way for it to be.

Wouldn't it be better to leave evidence which clearly directs them to a complete understanding of the universe and their place in it, rather than to leave many bedrock layers of lies to confuse them?

why would this be "better," when there is a perfectly good explanation for YEC that is consistent with the idea of a created universe derived from other sources? one that contains no lies unless one attempts to impose an explanation that doesn't fit the facts?

[kevin]

how would you have done it?

I have no idea.  I cant say that it would have ever occurred to me to simultaneously create, kill, and fossilize billions and billions of microscopic (and otherwise tiny organisms) so that I could make rock..... seems like the long way around to me.... kinda silly.

none of these fossils were ever alive, garja. the rock was created, made up of sedimentary clastic particles of the same sort that are made today by fossilizing microorganisms.

how is making rock out of instantaneously-created fossils any more unbelieveable than making it out of instantaneously-created inorganic crystals, feldspars as opposed to dinosaurs?

what's the difference? the rock has to be made of something, doesn't it? if you're going to have a mountain, what else can you make it out of?

[Garja]

Okay, they weren't alive.... but they are dead animals right?  So the all powerful creator of the universe said "I want a rock here so I will make it out of trillions of tiny carcasses... In the future I will make these animals live, die, and fossilize naturally forming MORE of this rock, but this just seems like the best route for me to go with rock right here and now".

I mean, if you are going to say this do you also believe that fossilized dinosaur remains were also poofed into existence? That dinosaurs never actually roamed the earth?  Do you believe that oil and coal were just formed by God or that they are the remains of plants and animals from earlier in the earths existence?  Because there is exactly zero difference (objectively) between rock formed by trillions of dead micro-organisms, rock formed by large lizard-like animals, oil formed by similar organisms to the rock, and coal formed by long dead forests.

[kevin]

Okay, they weren't alive.... but they are dead animals right?  So the all powerful creator of the universe said "I want a rock here so I will make it out of trillions of tiny carcasses... In the future I will make these animals live, die, and fossilize naturally forming MORE of this rock, but this just seems like the best route for me to go with rock right here and now".

I mean, if you are going to say this do you also believe that fossilized dinosaur remains were also poofed into existence? That dinosaurs never actually roamed the earth?  Do you believe that oil and coal were just formed by God or that they are the remains of plants and animals from earlier in the earths existence?  Because there is exactly zero difference (objectively) between rock formed by trillions of dead micro-organisms, rock formed by large lizard-like animals, oil formed by similar organisms to the rock, and coal formed by long dead forests.

garja, what exactly is your difficulty with this? we're not debating whether god created the universe in one event, up and running and going strong. that's a separate question. i'm trying to find out where you're coming from in thinking one method of doing it is likelier than another.

So, you feel it's consistent that god would have created (essentially) billions of carcasses in order to create sand, rocks, ect?

yes. i believe it's consistent. what's inconsistent about it?

[Garja]

garja, what exactly is your difficulty with this? we're not debating whether god created the universe in one event, up and running and going strong. that's a separate question.

Actually thats very nearly exactly what we are talking about here.

Just so I know where you are coming from: (true or false)
1. God used trillions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create oil.
2. God used trillions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create coal.
3. God used trillions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create rocks shaped like rocks.
4. God used billions of dead carcases of plants and animals to create rocks shaped like bones of animals.

Inconsistent may have been a poor word choice on my part.... It does seem rather odd (and macabre) that God would for reasons unknown create trillions of carcasses in order to create rocks (when other methods of rock creation exist), knowing full well that humanity would interpret these rocks as being exactly what they look like - the accumulation of trillions of death things over billions of years.  Why exactly would a god, who WANTS humanity to know and accept him as Creator and Lord, create a world that LOOKS governed by natural means not necessitating a Creator.

[kevin]

okay, first, there were never any carcasses. god created limestone out of nothing, and the structural componets of limestone are fossils. youre having difficulty because you think god created plants and animals, then killed them to make limestone. thats not what scripture says. scripture says god created *mountains* and later god created *plants snd animals.* the limestone was created in situ with particles in it identical to those we call fossils.

next you say other methods of making rock exist. what other way can you suggest to make limestone?

last, you say god created a world that appears not to be governed by a creator.

what world is that?

[Garja]

Kev, your last post seems to have two opposite opinions at the same time. You said that god just "made the limestone", then you essentially said that limestone only forms with the death of billions of animals. You kinda seem to want it both ways.

And no, limestone has exactly one way to form- why do we need a god for this?

God "created" a world where everything looks to have developed over an extraordinarily long amount of time over billions of years.

Does god, in your opinion, just like to f%#* with mankind? Is that his primary purpose? Just making limestone, fossils, and fuels that only LOOOOK extremely old, but really aren't.

Please answer my questions about oil, coal, and animal-bone-shaped rocks.

[kevin]

garja, i have it both ways because both ways are essential to creationism. youre missing this point.

if god created the earth from a state of nothing or of dizorganized chaos, to a state of orgNized process, in motion, with everything in an intermediate stAte, then yes, god created "ancient" limestone AND the modern processes thT continue to make modern limestone today.

this is inescapeable. 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.

when you set a clock, does somethong force you to put the numbers at 00:00 every time? or can you start your clock at noon?

acvording to creationists, god didnt create the universe to f**k with mankind. he made the univrrse at the intrrkediate state described in genesis, and he left christian scripture to explain it to anybody who was listening.

this is not what i believe, but as i alresdy said, creationism cznnot be refuted by material means.

[Garja]

And THAT is why creationism is stupid.

[kevin]

or atheism.

take your pick.

[Garja]

*Exaggerated sigh.

Creationism/Evolution is a completely separate discussion from theism/atheism.

However, we pretty much have to agree at this point that, if your god exists, hes kind of a d**k.  What with all that creating oil, rocks, coal, bone-shaped rocks here on earth that, as far as we can tell, ONLY come through a very particular set of geological occurrences over extremely long periods of time; AND, god has to go to the trouble to create an unfathomably large number of photons en route to earth so that we have a nice starry night as opposed to the handful of stars we would have in our night sky within 10k light years.

[kevin]

you know, garja, im generally reluctant to discuss the logical implications of creationism with nonbelievers because you guys just dont get it.

im a beliver in uniformitsrianism, the idea that the processeswe  we see at work today are the same processes that worked in the past. in a nontheist world, uniformitsrianidm is extended back indefinitely, until the nontheist invokes some sort of msterialist deus ex machina to explain nature. the current favorite is the singularity of the big bang, supported by strphen hawkings learned speculation that something msy indeed have inevitably come from nothing. creation wiyhout creator.

in the theist world, we generally have a belief in special creation of some sort. if this belief is held as a premise, then lasthursdsyism is as inevitable as water floeong downhill. no nontheist protestations of a lack of aesthetic appeal makes a ny difference at all. it simply is, inevitably. typically, nontheists bemoan the unlikliness of creationism. unlikely compared to what? to the unlikeliness of any paryicular alternate? the features of creationism are not up for evaluation if one accepts theistic creation in thefirst place. the resl question is whether there exists a god who creates, and if he does, why.

[Happy Evolute]

you know, garja, im generally reluctant to discuss the logical implications of creationism with nonbelievers because you guys just dont get it.

Some non-believers may not get it, but I certainly do.

The logical implication of creationism is that there is a creator, which is also its premise. This is called a circular argument, and therefore tells us nothing at all.

If you want to waste your time wandering round in circles that's fine by me so long as you keep out of trouble and don't frighten the horses.

[kevin]

your thinking is ass-backwards, HE. you don't get it at all.

creationism is implied by a prior belief in a creator, not the other way round. unless you have a prior belief in a creator that comes from other reasoning, discovery,or revelation, you have no reason to look for a logical consequence of that belief in your view of the world.

if you want to waste your time parading your ignorance of cause and effect, that's fine by me. i'd think a little longer before you post on the subject next time, though.

[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!