Author Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion  (Read 172319 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #960 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 02:48 PM »
Henry Gee (British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist):

From his book, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life.

“To recall what I said in chapter 1, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. …To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”


His answer after creationists extracted and presented this out of context (The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution, p103):


The chain of ancestry and descent we contruct after the fact is just that - a human construction, a way of interpreting evidence. However, this does not negate the existence of evolutionary ancestry and descent. I suspect creationists are sometimes motivated by the suggestion that when evoutionary biologists are in company, away from the public eye, they "admit" evolution is wrong, while perpetuating some enermous cover-up to set before the masses.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #961 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:00 PM »
That's not what I meant. Tatagalugin ko na. Kung meron kang nakitang fossil at sa umpisa inakala mong transitional animal, ngunit sa masusing pagsisiyasat, nakita mong hindi pala, tanggalin mo sa yung fossil sa theory mo. Ia-abandona mo ba yung therory mo? Hindi, di ba? Kasi ang tanging makakadisprove nung theory e pag may biglang bagong specie na lumitaw.

Evolution theory is a buffet of ideas and mechanisms that is constantly evolving depending on evidences and technology. It still stand kasi wala pang bagong specie na lumilitaw out of thin air.

Maiba naman, meron ka bang sasabihin kung bakit creation ang totoo?
First I suggest that the theory be renamed.......The Evolving Theory of Evolution.

Just what is a (good) Scientific Theory. Here are a few qualifications.

It must be explanatory. It must explain actual observation made by our five senses.

It must not contradict itself and is self-consistent.

It must be falsifiable or testable and must be vulnerable to observation. In principle envision a set of observation that would render it false.

It must have a clear logical structure that prevents it from bending and twisting to accommodate every observation. The structure provides the connection between a scientific explanation and its predictions. Because of the structure, a theory explains our observation while also predicting observations we should NOT see. This is a key feature of a scientific theory. The theory ultimately predicts that we will not observe certain things. This makes the theory testable. The theory could be refuted by the observations that contradict it.

Does the theory of evolution qualify?
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #962 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:03 PM »
Sorry, kung hindi clear. What I meant by "evolving" are methodologies, techonologies used, evidences to prove that exact same thing - evolution.

Maiba naman, how about creation? What can you say about it?

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #963 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:06 PM »
 
David B. Kitts (Professor of Geology,University of Oklahoma):
 
“Despite the bright promise – that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record.”
« Last Edit: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:07 PM by barrister »

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #964 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:11 PM »
http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm

Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (p. 25, emphasis mine)

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)

The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about.

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #965 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:11 PM »
Sorry, kung hindi clear. What I meant by "evolving" are methodologies, techonologies used, evidences to prove that exact same thing - evolution.

Maiba naman, how about creation? What can you say about it?

Of course, what else??? NOTHING... ;D

It is all about FAITH baby!!!
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #966 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:13 PM »
 
Steven M. Stanley (American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist):

“The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.”
« Last Edit: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:13 PM by barrister »

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #967 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:31 PM »
 
Stephen Jay Gould (American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist):
 
“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. …The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #968 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:50 PM »
 
Dawkins interview from the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008):
 
 
 
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
 
 
YouTube: "Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design"
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
 
« Last Edit: Nov 12, 2014 at 03:56 PM by barrister »

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #969 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 04:09 PM »
Sorry, kung hindi clear. What I meant by "evolving" are methodologies, techonologies used, evidences to prove that exact same thing - evolution.

Maiba naman, how about creation? What can you say about it?
you can have new methodologies, technologies till kingdom come.....but the theory should remain consistent!
As for evolution it is still large-scale change from molecules to man through natural selection acting on random mutation...any deviation from this will make the theory meaningless!

Lets compare creation and evolution:

Creation/ID:

In terms of explanation: It explains the origin of life. An intelligent designer is demanded by the data.

In terms of testability: It predicts certain observation on the complexity of life. Presence of fully-formed functional organisms from the smallest to the biggest. It could be falsified if natural processes could demonstrate the origin of life.

Evolution
In term of explanation:it explains that life came from natural selection acting on random mutation.

In term of testability: It predicts the presence of gradual changes from animal to animal.

Fossil record shows full formed functional organism!
Sino and tama ang prediction?

Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #970 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 04:18 PM »
you can have new methodologies, technologies till kingdom come.....but the theory should remain consistent!
As for evolution it is still large-scale change from molecules to man through natural selection acting on random mutation...any deviation from this will make the theory meaningless!

Saan bang part nag deviate?

Quote
Lets compare creation and evolution:

Creation/ID:

In terms of explanation: It explains the origin of life. An intelligent designer is demanded by the data.

In terms of testability: It predicts certain observation on the complexity of life. Presence of fully-formed functional organisms from the smallest to the biggest. It could be falsified if natural processes could demonstrate the origin of life.

You mean to say bacteria being immune to certain antibiotics is by intelligent design? Would bacteria immune to say, penicillin, be immune to penicillin if penicillin wasn't invented?

Quote

Evolution
In term of explanation:it explains that life came from natural selection acting on random mutation.

In term of testability: It predicts the presence of gradual changes from animal to animal.

Fossil record shows full formed functional organism!
Sino and tama ang prediction?

So, if you want to prove reptile to bird, by this you mean, you want a fossil that looks like a reptile but with beaks and wings?

Offline Tempter

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,657
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #971 on: Nov 12, 2014 at 04:23 PM »

Dawkins interview from the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008):
 
 
 
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
 
 
YouTube: "Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design"
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
 

So this all means to you that everything is by ID??? ;D

Or an Evolution advocate now bumabalimbing??? ;D
« Last Edit: Nov 12, 2014 at 04:24 PM by Tempter »
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #972 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 08:52 AM »


You mean to say bacteria being immune to certain antibiotics is by intelligent design? Would bacteria immune to say, penicillin, be immune to penicillin if penicillin wasn't invented?



Well, its definitely NOT evolution and here are the reasons why....

There are 3 genetic mechanism where resistance may occur. They are mutation, conjugation and dna transposition(transformation or transduction). Mutations  produce antibiotic resistant strain of microorganism. Conjugation is the joining of two bacterial cells and exchange genetic material. DNA transpositon occur in two ways; transformation where dna from the environmet(or a dead bacteria) is absorbed in wall and transduction where dna is absorbed from a virus.

Now are these types of changes evolution......NO!

First, mutations causing resistance does not occur as a result of the "need" of the organism. Simply put this means that mutations do have causes but the need to adapt is NOT one of them. Therefore mutation did not occur as result of exposure to antibiotis. Lederbergs experiment in 1952 showed that streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance.

Second, though resistance is a somewhat positive mutation it comes with a price. The surviving organism has less viabilty and reduced rate if metabolish resulting in slow growth. Acquiring these resistance does not result to new species or organism.

Lastly, and more importantly these bacterias even after years or generations though having resistance is..........The same bacteria, the same type and only differs in the population in its resistance to antibiotic!
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 09:03 AM by docelmo »
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #973 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 09:47 AM »
^You cited Lederberg. So now you believe in random mutation?

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #974 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM »
 
 
Fred Hoyle (English Astronomer)
 
 
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #975 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM »
^You cited Lederberg. So now you believe in random mutation?
Sir the issue is not whether mutations occur, because they do. The issue is whether natural selection acting on mutation result in emergence of new species! Evolution claims that there is change across specie bounderies using this mechanism. In the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria that has NOT occured!


 In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:

...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).
« Last Edit: Nov 14, 2014 at 08:24 AM by docelmo »
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #976 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM »




Richard Dawkins: 'immoral' not to abort if foetus has Down's syndrome
Scientist says a mother has a responsibility to ‘abort it and try again’ if she knows her baby would have the disorder
Press Association
theguardian.com, Thursday 21 August 2014 05.14 BST


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM by barrister »

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #977 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 10:19 AM »
Sir the issue is not wether mutations occur, because they do. The issue is wether natural selection acting on mutation result in emergence of new species! Evolution claims that there is change across specie bounderies using this mechanism. In the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria that has NOT occured!


 In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:

...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).

Ok, so why can't natural selection acting on random mutation not work? Is it because very stabilized species aren't affected by it?


Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #978 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 10:46 AM »
 Fruit fly generations have been studied longer than the presumed time man has been on earth.
 
According to evolution, man has lived on the earth for a little over a million years. Yet experiments on fruit flies have already exceeded the equivalent of a million years of people living on earth. Here is a clear statement of the problem: "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutational experiments because of its fast gestation period [twelve days]. X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process, such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of the many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."
 
"Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have not been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly. Most important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. For example, Ernst Mayr reported on two experiments performed on the fruit fly back in 1948.
 
"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.
 
xxx
 
..."For 80 years scientists have been experimenting with the lowly fruit fly (Drosophila), trying to prove that all life on planet earth is the result of a series of `good accidents.'
 
"Evolutionists, through a marvelous leap of faith, believe that the almost endless variety and complexity of plants and animals `evolved' from an ancient pool of `primordial soup.'
 
"How do they believe this is possible? By millions and billions of accidents. For example, an early fish might accidentally grow a new kind of fin which helped him swim faster and escape his enemies. Then his fins might accidentally turn to legs he could use to walk on land, and so on.
 
"All this is based on a faith by the evolutionists that somehow, somewhere a gene changed to give this higher life form. It has to be faith, because there is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better.
 
"The evidence is overwhelming that such accidents either make the gene worse or, at best, no better than the original.
 
"After all, how often do you see a car run faster and more smoothly after a head-on collision?
 
"Well, back to fruit flies. Because fruit flies reproduce many generations in a very short time, scientists picked them for the experiment hoping to compress thousands of years of `evolution' into a few years of lab work.
 
"After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies.
 
"And—more importantly—they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died.
 
"And when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form.
 
"One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution.
 
"God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly."—"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990.
 
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
 

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #979 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 10:51 AM »
My short answer, I believe that an "intelligent cause" is a more plausible explanation for the emergence and complexity of life. Take note I said Plausible and not absolute certainty.

While on the other hand i think you believe in the absolute certainty of evolution. That when presented with opposing view some coming from evolutionary scientists themselves are immediately labelled as bias and unscientific statements....

You got me wrong.

I believe a C rating is better than "plausible" in scientific terms.

Pag ID: ignore  the method of collating all relevant, research, experinents, journals to come up with updated treatment protocol. We classify data as level of reliabilty and relevance.

Where's the fairness?
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM by RU9 »

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #980 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 11:23 AM »
i read it from the Bible... ... pulpol ang 'evolution'...

mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...

I also read that the bible were written by drunks in the dessert..is this true?

statistician ka -- anong odds na ang existence of god is true?
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM by RU9 »

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,731
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2436
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #981 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM »
I also read that the bible were written by drunks in the dessert..is this true?

statistician ka -- anong odds na ang existence of god is true?

for us believers wala naman loss for us to believe there is a God and meron heaven and hell. If we die we have the possibility of going to heaven if indeed meron God, based on his judgement. If there is no God, if we die, wala na, that's the end of it.

For non-believers, if there is a God, if namatay, there is a possibility of going to Heaven or hell based on God's judgement. Pero there is more possibility of going to hell. If there is no God then if namatay, wala na, that's the end of it.

If there is really a hell, ang sakit nun to go there. Eternity yan, not several days or years lang. Try burning your hand for ten second and see how much it hurts.
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM by Moks007 »

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #982 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 12:17 PM »
If there is really a hell, ang sakit nun to go there. Eternity yan, not several days or years lang. Try burning your hand for ten second and see how much it hurts.

Sigurista ka pala.

So its our physical body that goes to hell. Hindi ba maging ashes ito dahil sa apoy?
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 12:27 PM by RU9 »

Offline leomarley

  • Trade Count: (+33)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,904
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #983 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:01 PM »
wow! so you're just believing and doing good just for the sake na hindi ka mapunta ng hell. that's a selfish reason.

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #984 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:05 PM »
You got me wrong.

I believe a C rating is better than "plausible" in scientific terms.

Pag ID: ignore  the method of collating all relevant, research, experinents, journals to come up with updated treatment protocol. We classify data as level of reliabilty and relevance.

Where's the fairness?
So, you dont believe in the absolute certainty of evolution?

Lets have some definiton.

Level C: At least fair scientific evidence suggests that there are benefits provided by the clinical service, but the balance between benefits and risks are too close for making general recommendations. Clinicians need not offer it unless there are individual considerations.

In fact in medicine we dont recommend level c in the treatment protocol.

plau·si·ble
ˈplôzəb(ə)l/
adjective
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"
synonyms:   credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable;

So in fact saying something is plausible has a higher level of credibility!

Speaking of science, can you state categorically your mechanism of evolution? What does it predict? What does it not predict and what will make it false?



Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,731
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2436
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #985 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:17 PM »
Sigurista ka pala.

So its our physical body that goes to hell. Hindi ba maging ashes ito dahil sa apoy?

Its our spirit that goes to heaven or hell. Hell is called the lake of fire. One will burn there forever. Sa religion na yun and thats what i believe in. Like i say, wala naman loss sa amin kung hindi totoo yan. Pero if totoo we just all wait for judgement day to see where we are going. If we die wala na forum to say, hoy sabi ko nga tama ako or ikaw tama diba? Hehe

Offline Moks007

  • Trade Count: (+51)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,731
  • Bond, James Bond
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2436
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #986 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:25 PM »
wow! so you're just believing and doing good just for the sake na hindi ka mapunta ng hell. that's a selfish reason.

No its not, i believe in Jesus Christ and what the Bible teaches since bata pa. To me there is a beautiful place prepared for us in heaven. Eternal life yan. No more suffering. Eternal din ang hell. Forever suffering. Paano if you  killed somebody and want to go to heaven? We have freewill nga. Kaya sa judgement day we will know where we will go. Well that is what i believe in and not forcing anybody. Sa religion thread nalang yan pero related din ito sa topic dito imo.
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:31 PM by Moks007 »

Offline docelmo

  • Trade Count: (+28)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 941
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #987 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:34 PM »


So, if you want to prove reptile to bird, by this you mean, you want a fossil that looks like a reptile but with beaks and wings?
First do you agree with my explanation of theory of evolution that of being natural selection acting on random mutation? Based on this, what do you think will this mechanism predict? Not predict and what observations will make it false?
Denon/ GoldenEar Technology/Onkyo/Optoma/Sansui/SVS

Offline bumblebee

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #988 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:51 PM »
^I don't quite get your explanation. But from what I gather you wanted new species, pronto.

Here's something I got from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!


Something about ebola too: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/141003_ebola
« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 01:52 PM by bumblebee »

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion
« Reply #989 on: Nov 13, 2014 at 02:26 PM »

C- At least fair scientific evidence
plausible - (with zero evidence) has no credibility

My belief is that the theory of evolution is more rational than the belief in god.



« Last Edit: Nov 13, 2014 at 03:24 PM by RU9 »