Ahab Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 The explanation you give is based on no evidence at all, only supposition. It's a non-scientific hypothesis.If you understand anything at all about science fiction you should be able to understand that science fiction could at least possibly be science non-fiction. And contrary to what you said the explanation I gave is based on what we can see now about how life comes from various kinds of living beings reproducing their own kind rather than producing another kind of being.So I gave you 3 reasonable interpretations of the evidence of life as we now know it, and you can pick whichever reasonable explanation you like the very best.1. Life has always existed on this planet for as long as this planet has existed and each kind of living being now here reproduces after its own kind just as it always has on this planet, minus whatever is now extinct back to whenever it became extinct on this planet.2. Life hasn't always existed here on thisplanet and it first got started whenever someone brought life of some kind to this planet, either just once or multiple times in the past, and for as long as life of some kind or kinds have existed on this planet each kind of living being has perpetuated its own kind by whatever means each kind of being reproduces.3. A combination of either explanation above along with the idea that some kinds of living beings can produce another kind of being other than its own kind as well as reproducing its own kind.Evolution is consistent with all evidence gathered to date. No competing competing falsifiable explanations are consistent with known evidence.Yes, but as I've been saying there are other reasonable interpretations of the known evidence and there are no competing falsifiable explanations or interpretations for those interpretations, either.Just because you don't like or agree with one of the other reasonable interpretations doesn't mean it isn't true or at least possibly true.
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 CONGRATULATIONS, Finally someone tried to name a PhD Biologist, but he has a PhD in plant physiology and geochemistry. http://mormonscholarstestify.org/645/frank-b-salisbury But no doubt that he knows more about biology than me, but most of his peers disagree with him. September 1971? That is out of date, that was before DNA conclusively proved Evolution. It seems that Dr. Salisbury also believes in UFO pseudoscience, but I am not sure he believes that. But Dr. Salisbury wrote, "The fossils in the earth's sedimentary rocks are the remains of organisms that lived and died on the earth. If there were no death of any organisms until after the fall, all of these fossils must have been produced in the Noachian flood—and that is what some people during the Middle Ages believed. This idea can be found now among the young-earth creationists. This would mean that all those organisms—for example, dinosaurs and humans—were living on earth at the same time. The ordering of the strata in the earth's crust just does not fit this picture. No traces of humans have ever been found in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example. I see large quantities of the remains of living organisms that testify to an ancient earth: coal, limestones, dolomites, and diatomaceous earth represent such remains. The diatomaceous earth, for example, consists of microscopic shells of diatoms laid down one cell at a time, a process that would require millions of years to produce the known strata thicknesses"http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdf and Dr. Salisbury also wrote, "it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth’s surface" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdfBut, Salisbury is not your typical trained Darwinist and that is all that matters. Salisbury believes God directed life by design and not the result of Darwinian evolution.
Gray Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 If you understand anything at all about science fiction you should be able to understand that science fiction could at least possibly be science non-fiction. And contrary to what you said the explanation I gave is based on what we can see now about how life comes from various kinds of living beings reproducing their own kind rather than producing another kind of being.So I gave you 3 reasonable interpretations of the evidence of life as we now know it, and you can pick whichever reasonable explanation you like the very best.1. Life has always existed on this planet for as long as this planet has existed and each kind of living being now here reproduces after its own kind just as it always has on this planet, minus whatever is now extinct back to whenever it became extinct on this planet.2. Life hasn't always existed here on thisplanet and it first got started whenever someone brought life of some kind to this planet, either just once or multiple times in the past, and for as long as life of some kind or kinds have existed on this planet each kind of living being has perpetuated its own kind by whatever means each kind of being reproduces.3. A combination of either explanation above along with the idea that some kinds of living beings can produce another kind of being other than its own kind as well as reproducing its own kind.Yes, but as I've been saying there are other reasonable interpretations of the known evidence and there are no competing falsifiable explanations or interpretations for those interpretations, either.Just because you don't like or agree with one of the other reasonable interpretations doesn't mean it isn't true or at least possibly true. We already have very solid evidence that species evolve over time into new species. The evidence is so strong that "fact" would be a good short hand word to describe it. Option 1 is impossible. Different species have emerged and died out over different time periods for billions of years. The evidence for that is clear. Option 2 is also impossible if you mean it to explain the diversity of life on the planet. That simply doesn't match the evidence.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 6, 2014 Author Posted June 6, 2014 But, Salisbury is not your typical trained Darwinist and that is all that matters. Salisbury believes God directed life by design and not the result of Darwinian evolution. Dr. Salisbury also wrote, "it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth’s surface" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdf Amazon says, "the author argues that we must find God on our own and not be enticed by scientific evidence to believe or disbelieve. His own belief in God, coupled with decades of study and research that he shares in this book, has led him to appreciate the beauty of an Intelligent Creation." http://www.amazon.com/Case-Divine-Design-Frank-Salisbury/dp/1555179002
cinepro Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 I have challenged many to name just one Mormon Biologist, Paleontologist, or Geneticist that doesn't believe in Evolution, but so far no one has answered my question. and you commited the Red Herring fallacy. Don't dodge my question, can you name one Mormon that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics that doesn't believe in Evolution? Just one, if you can't, the debate is over. I doubt it, there are few Evangelicals, but no Mormon. All Mormon PhD Biologists and Paleontologists believe in Evolution, no one can name a Mormon that doesn't. Yes almost all Biologists believe in Evolution, except for some Evangelicals, but very few. Okay, most likely (but not 100% certain) that all Mormons that have PhD in Biology, Genetics, and Paleontology believe in Evolution. The reason for that is that the evidences are powerful. Maybe one does't believe in Evolution, but I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that. The Burden of Proof falls on you. It is impossible for me to prove that all Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution, but it is possible for you to prove that one or two don't, it shouldn't be hard. but you cannot name a Mormon PhD Biologists, Paleontologists, Geneticists, that agrees with you. It makes sense that the best experts are PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists. (Rob Osborn quotes Frank Salisbury, who has a PhD in Biology, expressing his "doubts about the modern sythetic theory of evolution") CONGRATULATIONS, Finally someone tried to name a PhD Biologist, but he has a PhD in plant physiology and geochemistry. My initial impression about the OP was that it was some meta-joke, but I didn't expect it to pay off so spectacularly. Well done, all!
Ahab Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 We already have very solid evidence that species evolve over time into new species. The evidence is so strong that "fact" would be a good short hand word to describe it.Option 1 is impossible. Different species have emerged and died out over different time periods for billions of years. The evidence for that is clear.Option 2 is also impossible if you mean it to explain the diversity of life on the planet. That simply doesn't match the evidence.At this point I will only say you are wrong to call options 1 and 2 impossible and that the fact that you have said that has caused me to lose interest in trying to explain things to you.
Rob Osborn Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Dr. Salisbury also wrote, "it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth’s surface" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdf Amazon says, "the author argues that we must find God on our own and not be enticed by scientific evidence to believe or disbelieve. His own belief in God, coupled with decades of study and research that he shares in this book, has led him to appreciate the beauty of an Intelligent Creation." http://www.amazon.com/Case-Divine-Design-Frank-Salisbury/dp/1555179002Intelligent creation is not Darwinian evolution.
Gray Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 At this point I will only say you are wrong to call options 1 and 2 impossible and that the fact that you have said that has caused me to lose interest in trying to explain things to you. New species are continually emerging. Many also go extinct. Those facts are not compatible with the idea of billions of years of changeless generations of animals.
longview Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 The FrontPage Magazine is a political think tank, it is not nonpartisan, that is against the rules here, so I request that your comment gets deleted immediately. Andrew Klavan is a political commentator, not a climate scientist, that is against the rules. Linking to websites that have a political motives proves nothing, and again, that is against the rules here. Next time make sure you link to a respected nonpartisan website. and your websites have no more credibility than the anti-AIDSMedicine documentary called "House of Numbers"It is extremely sad that there are many AIDS deniers now. That is what happens when you reject the scientific community. "House of Numbers" is an example of how extremely easy it is to make people reject obvious facts. You should review the amazing life of David Horowitz. He understands the motivation of the whole range of socialists, communists, statists, totalitarians. His is an educational foundation for the purpose of fighting immorality, despotism, tyranny. He is not pushing for one party over another because all parties are guilty of satanic impulses. And he does call out the perpetrators on all sides. So it is not just a demo vs repub thing. Therefore not that political.
Ahab Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 New species are continually emerging. Many also go extinct. Those facts are not compatible with the idea of billions of years of changeless generations of animals.Maybe you didn't see earlier but I made it clear that I have no problem with micro evolution, such as new species of crickets from other crickets. I just don't agree and don't believe it is true that one kind of being can become another kind of being, like an ape becoming a man, or a one cell anything of the same kind becoming both an ape and a man or whatever else such a thing of the same kind is thought to produce.But the most basic form of an ape becoming the most complex form of an ape, and yet still not a man of any kind? Yes, I believe that is possible. 1
Rob Osborn Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 For me the deal breaker is how organs in male and female species evolved. How exactly do you get female and male sex organs to co-evolve? Logic would tell me that you couldnt have the one without the other. You would have to have them evolve relatively at the same time and somehow, by some amazing miracle, only work because of the opposite sex accompanying it to work. There is absolutely no way that you are going to go from a single sex and asexual reproduction to all of a sudden having two opposing sexes that evolve at the same exact time that were no longer capable of asexual reporoduction in one generation to be feasible. So, pretty much in one generation you go from asexual reproduction and one sex to two sexes dependent on each other for sexual reproduction. There also is no evidence whatsoever of this amazing feat taking place. All the evidence points to no ability of species to do this.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Dr. Salisbury also wrote, "it does seem that evolution has occurred over past eons on the earth’s surface" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/18/1/S00015-5176a9c5ba37115Salsibury.pdf I don't know anybody here argueing that micro-evolution has occurred. It is on the macro-level where the problem arises.
Ahab Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 I don't know anybody here argueing that micro-evolution has occurred. It is on the macro-level where the problem arises.And now sometime soon sometimes aint will chime in to argue that macro evolution is just a whole bunch of micro evolution, and then we'll tell him we don't agree on that point, and then he'll keep arguing that it is the same thing, and he won't even admit there is such a thing as a "kind" of being, and then I'll give up on arguing with him, yet again.My guess is that some people just can't see the truth as I see it, for some strange reason.
Rob Osborn Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Why can't science just report what is observed and leave all of the opinions, guesses and conjecture to philosophers and religionists to discuss? If this were the case we wouldnt have a science built upon imagination and conjecture.
jkwilliams Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Why can't science just report what is observed and leave all of the opinions, guesses and conjecture to philosophers and religionists to discuss? If this were the case we wouldnt have a science built upon imagination and conjecture. Science is about figuring out how things work. Hypotheses (what I'm assuming you mean by "guesses and conjecture") stand or fall based on what is observed. Evolution is accepted precisely because it explains quite well what is observed, not because it fits someone's imagination.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 . Next time make sure you link to a respected nonpartisan website. There isn't any such thing.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 I am a surgeon and my undergrad degree was biochemistry and molecular biology. I personally do not believe in evolution as taught. There are too many unrecognized assumptions built into the theory and analysis of data. I imagine that I am biased by my own experience trying to engage the topic with molecular biology professors. I cannot imagine more dogmatic and condescending responses to simple questions that should permeate any such field. The most common response I received to specific questions regarding the evidence for the theory was essentially, "don't worry about it- everybody knows evolution is true." gray- why do you say that physicians are not scientists? The club refuses to recognize the problems with macro-evolution. They are dismissed out of hand.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 God is omnipotent. The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that our planet occurred 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point? More inane mischaracterizations of what is being posted.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 My astronomy professor said that when he received in undergraduate degree in Physics, he thought he knew everything.When he worked towards is masters, he was impressed at the amount of stuff he had to learn, he knew nothing. So your undergraduate degree is not a PhD, you are not an expert in molecular biology. Most medical Doctors don't compare the DNA of humans and animals, and they are not experts in animal life and fossils.It makes sense that the best experts are PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists. It kind of hard when you keep moving the boundaries but that, unfortunately, par for the course.
jkwilliams Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 The club refuses to recognize the problems with macro-evolution. They are dismissed out of hand. I'm still unclear as to what the problems are with macro-evolution. The fossil record shows transitions from fish to amphibian as well as other transitions. If macro-evolution didn't happen, we would not see anything like that in the fossil record. But we do.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Why can't science just report what is observed and leave all of the opinions, guesses and conjecture to philosophers and religionists to discuss? If this were the case we wouldnt have a science built upon imagination and conjecture. Boring.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 This is interesting. I never claimed any expertise in anything. I have spent 4 years in a basic science lab designing, conducting, and analyzing experiments involving DNA, proteins, etc. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the biology involved in the theory of evolution as well as the science. And of course my undergraduate degree is not a PhD- that is not possible. A note on the "experts." I respect science and scientists. But it is important to recognize that any particular field has its limitations. A PhD in biology has probably the same level of expertise and training that I have in biology. But the PhD process involves a tremendous degree of specialization- some PhDs in biology are going to know a heck of a lot about the North Atlantic ..... fish population. That does not inherently involve much hands-on expertise with investigating evolution. And I am not sure why you think a physicist would have more weight in opining on evolution than an orthopedic surgeon or some other professional with a significant amount of education in the physical sciences. For whatever it is worth, I have a fair amount of experience in basic sciences and have interacted a significant amount with researchers in the field of evolutionary biology. I have serious doubts and problems with evolution as it is taught- and I am not just talking about the idea of life arising as a result of random events, but the methods and extend of natural selection and the evolution of species. Maybe more important than any specific classes or degrees is the understanding and experience in the culture of University biological research. Most folks do not understand the limitations and shortcomings of this environment and process. There are tremendous positives in scientific research. But there are also a huge number of invalid conclusions being made all the time. I don't have any expertise in biology either but I have an MBA and I am a CPA which gives me some expertise in analyzing information and critical and analytical reasoning. OK MormonFreeThinker its time to reveal your area of expertise.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 We already have very solid evidence that species evolve over time into new species. The evidence is so strong that "fact" would be a good short hand word to describe it. A funny thing about facts is that they can be interpreted in different ways.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 7, 2014 Author Posted June 7, 2014 You should review the amazing life of David Horowitz. He understands the motivation of the whole range of socialists, communists, statists, totalitarians. His is an educational foundation for the purpose of fighting immorality, despotism, tyranny. He is not pushing for one party over another because all parties are guilty of satanic impulses. And he does call out the perpetrators on all sides. So it is not just a demo vs repub thing. Therefore not that political. Very nice, Alex Jones is a war veteran and he fights immorality too, but all the stuff he says is just not true. Anyways, Horowitz is not a climate scientist, and the topic is Evolution. Just because Horowitz fights immorality, doesn't mean that his arguments are right. Faithful Mormon biologists believe in Evolution (and talked about it in their testimony) because the evidence is strong, not because their parents taught them to believe in Evolution.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 And now sometime soon sometimes aint will chime in to argue that macro evolution is just a whole bunch of micro evolution, and then we'll tell him we don't agree on that point, and then he'll keep arguing that it is the same thing, and he won't even admit there is such a thing as a "kind" of being, and then I'll give up on arguing with him, yet again.My guess is that some people just can't see the truth as I see it, for some strange reason. Yep its on its way. Princess kisses frog and frog turns into a prince = fairy tale. Frog turns into a prince over millions of years = science.
Recommended Posts