Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Kicking The Horse

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by daViper on August 13, 1999 01:54:54 UTC

: : : : : If life originated from a single-celled organism, then one assumes that information must accrue over time in order to account for the complexity we see in the present biosphere. Can anyone here provide an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that has led to an increase in information? : : : : ::::::::::::::: : : : : Read my lower post on the microbiological implications you brought up regarding Behe's book bzrd.

: : : : I give a few examples right there but more importantly, I give references to the U.S. Governments public medical database where you will find about 13,000 more.

: : : : Enjoy your search.

: : : : Peace.

: : : bzrd here, Viper. Sorry it took so long to get back. I spent some time reveiwing the evidence presented on the website you provided. I will have to be honest and admit that for the most part it was over my head. However, it would seem that if there were sufficient evidence of an increase of coded genetic information in the genome, then it would be easy to provide a viable mechanism for macroevolution. Clearly, this is not the case. You would agree that macroevolution is an extrapolation of microevolution and is not supported by empirical evidence? Every day is a blessing my freind.... : : ::::::::::::::: : : No I would not agree that at all.

: : First, the terms Micro- and Macro- evolution were invented by YEC's not scientists. The YEC's had to come up with something since it was proven that small steps in evolution can be observed in the lab and in the field directly. When this occurred, the YEC's had to admit that evolution is in fact a reality, but still would not accept the fossil record as evidence for long term major evolutionary change which can't be observed within a single human lifetime. It was a way of trying to wipe the egg off their faces, since I've yet to meet a YEC that had the character to admit he could possibly be wrong about anything.

: : The whole argument is pointless to me since it's just more YEC grabbiing at straws. Scientists began to use the terminology to try to explain to YEC's how evolution works but it's still an exercise in futility to me since it amounts to educating what is already a closed mind not willing to accept education.

: : So be it. You are right in naming this thread "kicking the horse" and if you cannot see empirical evidence when it is presented right in front of your eyes I can't help you.

: : This "no evidence" agrument is growing weary with me and I'm going to pull out of it since I can't spend my time doing research for OTHER people. I have other things to do in life that are more important to me than trying to demonstrate reality to those who are so blind they will not see. Like buliding my garden railroad, scuba diving and practicing my fencing lessons. I'm really beginning to not care whether the YEC's wake up and smell the coffee or not. If someone chooses to remain ignorant all their life, it's really no skin off my nose.

: : Frankly this message board has about lost it's interest for me since I don't see any real scientists or open minded religious people coming here to discuss the issue of the Titled Topic with any solid backgrounds in the subjecy matter to discuss it with.

: : The arguments are old, been argued to death elsewhere, and nothing actually new is surfacing here. I could take a YEC's position and present arguments that are currently in their repertoire as opposed to the tired old 20-30 year old ones being presented here.

: : I was looking for at least a challenge. Here there is none, it's all old tired stuff to me, and I really don't care to argue this old stuff any more.

: : Peace, and have a good day, and a good time.

: bzrd here, Viper. "Even where information increase is possible the rate of mutation is far too low in the evolutionary time frame". Dr. Lee Spetner Ph.D MIT "The Journal of Theoretical Biology" God Bless.

::::::::::::: This is called Quoting Out Of Context. ANOTHER old YEC trick.

What Dr. Spetner is actually referring to here is a specific process where stable populations reach a stasis such as certain insects are at right now. It in no way implies that the Dr. means to say that this is a rule of thumb that applies across the board.

I've seen this one too, and it is a disingenious trick by YEC's to fool the gullible into believing a credible scientist does not support evolution when in fact the opposite is true.

The good Dr. would be appalled to know his quote was being used to further the cause of creation pseudo-science.

Since YECs have no credible scientists in thero camp, they often resort to this type tomfoolery to make the naive believe something that is not true.

Another demonstration of their lack of integrity.

Peace.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins