John Larsen Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I am personally satisfied that Darwinian evolutionary theory is, for the most part, complete and absolute nonsense. It is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the fairy tale a frog turns into a prince, in evolutionary theory the same thing happens, the only difference is the timescale. It's laughable.AlanYes, let us abandon the talk of the absolute nonsense of the biological science and return to the concreteness of Kolob, angels with flaming swords and Mesoamerican charioted warriors with their mighty steeds. Enough with the laughable!
lostindc Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 I am personally satisfied that Darwinian evolutionary theory is, for the most part, complete and absolute nonsense. It is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the fairy tale a frog turns into a prince, in evolutionary theory the same thing happens, the only difference is the timescale. It's laughable.AlanGood points Alan
Notquitewetyet Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I am personally satisfied that Darwinian evolutionary theory is, for the most part, complete and absolute nonsense. It is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the fairy tale a frog turns into a prince, in evolutionary theory the same thing happens, the only difference is the timescale. It's laughable.AlanI am personally satisfied that Mormonism is, for the most part, complete and absolute nonsense. It is a fairy tale for grown-ups. In the fairy tale a frog turns into a prince, in Mormonism a man turns into a god, the only difference is what they become. It's laughable.
littlechild Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/adamites.htmlAdamites, Pre-Adamites, and the Origin of Race in Mormon Theology Be promoters of FAITH, not destroyers of it! Teach your students that they CAN believe in divinely-guided evolution, and in Mormonism, at the same time. Darwinism and Mormonism contradict each other! But Evolution and Mormonism does NOT contradict each other. Darwinism (that life evolved by chance/randomly) is a Philosophy of Man. Evolution (that life evolved) is a scientific theory that DOES hold water! Evolution explains the "HOW". Mormonism explains the "WHY". Thank you. Darrick Evenson darrickevenson@yahoo.comBunk. All of it.Evolution is an example of HISTORICAL science - in other words, reconstructed by the mind of man. It has never been OBSERVED. And it never will be either.
Tsuzuki Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Bunk. All of it.Evolution is an example of HISTORICAL science - in other words, reconstructed by the mind of man. It has never been OBSERVED. And it never will be either.This should put to rest any arguments in favor of the historicity of scripture, as well, as it is equally as directly unobservable, if not more so. Thank you for pointing out the futility of archeological apologetics.
lostindc Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 This should put to rest any arguments in favor of the historicity of scripture, as well, as it is equally as directly unobservable, if not more so. Thank you for pointing out the futility of archeological apologetics.sounds good to me, a prefer a personal spiritual witness anyways...thats pretty much what the latter-day prophets have been saying anyways
Tsuzuki Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 sounds good to me, a prefer a personal spiritual witness anyways...thats pretty much what the latter-day prophets have been saying anywaysJust be sure you're not receiving a stupor of thought instead.
The Dude Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 You have yet to put anything substantial on the board to prove to us "creationists" why the theory of evolution is correct. Please show me...Humans are genetically most similar to the great apes. Since DNA is the physical code that directs the construction and maintenance of bodies, it makes sense that humans and apes have both genetic and physiological similarities. Since DNA is also the medium for both inheritance and genetic mutation, it is perfectly logical to apply Darwin's evolutionary reasoning and look for signs that DNA has changed in accordance with so-called evolutionary trees. One clear example can be seen in this short video where Ken Miller presents evidence on human chromosome 2:Ken Miller on Human EvolutionThe data says that humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to the 24 pairs carried by all other great apes. If evolution is true and humans and apes shared a common ancestor, then there must be a way to reconcile the different numbers of chromosomes: either the humans lost a chromosome by head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, or else apes gained a chromosome by splitting of one chromosome in two. As Miller shows in that video, human chromosome #2 retains molecular landmarks proving it was made of two ape chromosomes that fused together.Despite this evidence, creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan wish to argue that common descent cannot be proved and is only believed by credulous fools who have been "taken in" because nobody has seen an ape giving birth to a human. This is a shockingly ignorant argument to people who understand evolution, who know that we shouldn't see apes giving birth to humans because many other individual mutations (besides the chromosomal fusion) would have to appear and survive in order for recognizable species differences to arise. This takes a very long time, probably longer than humans have been recording observations about plants and animals.Meanwhile there are real mutations spreading through the human population in our lifetimes -- for example the spread of advantageous "lactose tolerance" mutations in humans since we started keeping animals for milk. When creationists are shown these mutations they generally concede something they call "microevolution", but won't budge on something else they call "macroevolution". (Terms in quotes are not used by scientists except to address the confused creationists who use them.) This argument, which creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan are quite familiar with, stubbornly affirms that small changes over long periods of time cannot lead to species differences. There is no argument for this, only a stubborn affirmation.Richard Dawkins uses a metaphor called "Mount Improbably" which helps to explain what creationists are missing about evolution. If the challenge for evolution is to transform organisms from one state (species) to another, that is like getting from the valley floor to a high mountaintop which has sheer cliff faces. The creationists look at the mountain and the cliffs and affirm that the leap, or species transformation, is impossible. But evolution doesn't say there are leaps across mountaintops and valleys. Evolution suggests there are stepwise paths between mountains and valleys, or mutation paths between species with discreet and retraceable steps such as the chromosome fusion described above. Creationists stubbornly affirm that there are only cliffs around Mount Improbable, and only evidence of a great leap will meet their demands. Under these circumstances we quickly run out of useful discussion.Creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan will make facile attempts to trivialize DNA similarities across species (which largely track proposed evolutionary relationships) as merely a reflection of DNA's function in constructing different body types. Since humans and apes have similar body type, they have similar DNA. Mice are more different and so there are more DNA differences. And so on. In this view, the appearance of evolutionary relationships in DNA is secondary to the function of DNA in the species -- and so the "evolutionary" pattern is just an illusion. This conveniently assumes that it's no matter that DNA doesn't just build bodies but is also the means of passing on genetic information to every further generation, exactly what evolution demands. This facile explanation turns a blind eye to patterns of genetic similarity that do not make sense without the light of evolutionary thinking. Whale evolution is a fine example of what I'm referring to:The hypothesis that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals predicts that living whales and closely related living terrestrial mammals should show similarities in their molecular biology roughly in proportion to the recency of their common ancestor. That is, whales should be more similar in their molecular biology to groups of animals with which they share a more recent common ancestor than to other animals that exhibit convergent similarities in morphology, ecology, or behavior.Whales are genetically most similar to archyodactyls (like pigs and camels), not to other aquatic mammals like otters, seals and manatees. In the view of creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan, why should this DNA similarity exist? They will say DNA similarities reflect only similar gene functions and not evidence of common descent, but if that is true, then aquatic mammals ought to have more gene similarities to each other rather than to particular land mammals that evolution designates as terrestrial relatives. I wonder how creationists can account for such gene similarities that make perfect sense to evolutionary theory, but no sense according to their creationism. I hope they will respond with something more insightful than:"Bunk, all of it" -- littlechild"It [Evolution] is a fairy tale for grown-ups." -- Alan"I am just enjoying Darwin and his atheist nerds getting picked apart..." -- lostindc
lostindc Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 Humans are genetically most similar to the great apes. Since DNA is the physical code that directs the construction and maintenance of bodies, it makes sense that humans and apes have both genetic and physiological similarities. Since DNA is also the medium for both inheritance and genetic mutation, it is perfectly logical to apply Darwin's evolutionary reasoning and look for signs that DNA has changed in accordance with so-called evolutionary trees. One clear example can be seen in this short video where Ken Miller presents evidence on human chromosome 2:Ken Miller on Human EvolutionThe data says that humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to the 24 pairs carried by all other great apes. If evolution is true and humans and apes shared a common ancestor, then there must be a way to reconcile the different numbers of chromosomes: either the humans lost a chromosome by head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, or else apes gained a chromosome by splitting of one chromosome in two. As Miller shows in that video, human chromosome #2 retains molecular landmarks proving it was made of two ape chromosomes that fused together.Despite this evidence, creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan wish to argue that common descent cannot be proved and is only believed by credulous fools who have been "taken in" because nobody has seen an ape giving birth to a human. This is a shockingly ignorant argument to people who understand evolution, who know that we shouldn't see apes giving birth to humans because many other individual mutations (besides the chromosomal fusion) would have to appear and survive in order for recognizable species differences to arise. This takes a very long time, probably longer than humans have been recording observations about plants and animals.Meanwhile there are real mutations spreading through the human population in our lifetimes -- for example the spread of advantageous "lactose tolerance" mutations in humans since we started keeping animals for milk. When creationists are shown these mutations they generally concede something they call "microevolution", but won't budge on something else they call "macroevolution". (Terms in quotes are not used by scientists except to address the confused creationists who use them.) This argument, which creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan are quite familiar with, stubbornly affirms that small changes over long periods of time cannot lead to species differences. There is no argument for this, only a stubborn affirmation.Richard Dawkins uses a metaphor called "Mount Improbably" which helps to explain what creationists are missing about evolution. If the challenge for evolution is to transform organisms from one state (species) to another, that is like getting from the valley floor to a high mountaintop which has sheer cliff faces. The creationists look at the mountain and the cliffs and affirm that the leap, or species transformation, is impossible. But evolution doesn't say there are leaps across mountaintops and valleys. Evolution suggests there are stepwise paths between mountains and valleys, or mutation paths between species with discreet and retraceable steps such as the chromosome fusion described above. Creationists stubbornly affirm that there are only cliffs around Mount Improbable, and only evidence of a great leap will meet their demands. Under these circumstances we quickly run out of useful discussion.Creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan will make facile attempts to trivialize DNA similarities across species (which largely track proposed evolutionary relationships) as merely a reflection of DNA's function in constructing different body types. Since humans and apes have similar body type, they have similar DNA. Mice are more different and so there are more DNA differences. And so on. In this view, the appearance of evolutionary relationships in DNA is secondary to the function of DNA in the species -- and so the "evolutionary" pattern is just an illusion. This conveniently assumes that it's no matter that DNA doesn't just build bodies but is also the means of passing on genetic information to every further generation, exactly what evolution demands. This facile explanation turns a blind eye to patterns of genetic similarity that do not make sense without the light of evolutionary thinking. Whale evolution is a fine example of what I'm referring to:Whales are genetically most similar to archyodactyls (like pigs and camels), not to other aquatic mammals like otters, seals and manatees. In the view of creationists like lostindc, littlechild, and Alan, why should this DNA similarity exist? They will say DNA similarities reflect only similar gene functions and not evidence of common descent, but if that is true, then aquatic mammals ought to have more gene similarities to each other rather than to particular land mammals that evolution designates as terrestrial relatives. I wonder how creationists can account for such gene similarities that make perfect sense to evolutionary theory, but no sense according to their creationism. I hope they will respond with something more insightful than:"Bunk, all of it" -- littlechild"It [Evolution] is a fairy tale for grown-ups." -- Alan"I am just enjoying Darwin and his atheist nerds getting picked apart..." -- lostindcWow, and you have trouble believing in The Book of Mormon, yet you believe everything you just wrote here?
lostindc Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 BTW, you do realize that Ken Miller is Christian and believes in God. right?http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1109miller.asp
Tsuzuki Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Wow, and you have trouble believing in The Book of Mormon, yet you believe everything you just wrote here?I believe in the Book of Mormon, and I believe what he wrote.
The Dude Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Wow, and you have trouble believing in The Book of Mormon, yet you believe everything you just wrote here? You have to do better than that, lost. You asked for evidence, I gave it, now you tell me how your beliefs about creation can account for the evidence. Read the links. Watch the video. Respond with intelligence and substance, not mocking.BTW, you do realize that Ken Miller is Christian and believes in God. right?http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=999Yes, I am aware. Have you read his book "Finding Darwin's God?" Full of evidence for evolution and debunking of creationist lies. I highly recommend it. And did you read the link you just gave? You should.Now please tell me, without mocking or changing the subject, how your beliefs about creation can account for the evidence I gave in my earlier post.
lostindc Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 You have to do better than that, lost. You asked for evidence, I gave it, now you tell me how your beliefs about creation can account for the evidence. Read the links. Watch the video. Respond with intelligence and substance, not mocking.Yes, I am aware. Have you read his book "Finding Darwin's God?" Full of evidence for evolution and debunking of creationist lies. I highly recommend it. And did you read the link you just gave? You should.Now please tell me, without mocking or changing the subject, how your beliefs about creation can account for the evidence I gave in my earlier post.Instead of posting 900 sites debunking your 23 fossils that prove that whale is a wolf or some garbage like that, I think it is pertinent that for a person that is a skeptic or one who likes to rationalize it is shocking that you do not turn your attention on evolution.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp
HiJolly Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Wow, and you have trouble believing in The Book of Mormon, yet you believe everything you just wrote here?I believe in the Book of Mormon AND in the Fall, and I also believe that evolution is for real. What The Dude has written (on evolution, anyway) is correct. HiJolly
HiJolly Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Instead of posting 900 sites debunking your 23 fossils that prove that whale is a wolf or some garbage like that, I think it is pertinent that for a person that is a skeptic or one who likes to rationalize it is shocking that you do not turn your attention on evolution.I think you woefully underestimate evolution. I think you haven't got a clue as to what it really is. You just mock a straw man you believe in because you believe people in 'authority', and have not studied the issue yourself. HiJolly
Tanyan Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 http://www.reasons.org then srolll down to "Articles by topics" for Eviolution and Creationism. In His Debt/Grace Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
The Dude Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Instead of posting 900 sites debunking your 23 fossils that prove that whale is a wolf or some garbage like that, I think it is pertinent that for a person that is a skeptic or one who likes to rationalize it is shocking that you do not turn your attention on evolution.I said without changing the subject.It is time to man up to your responsibilities to the challenges YOU make, despite your insecurities and constant ability to place yourself in embarrassing situations.
thesometimesaint Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 lostindc:"BTW, you do realize that Ken Miller is Christian and believes in God. right?"You do realize that your statement is a non sequitur?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.