30% of Texans Believe "The Flintstones" is a Documentary

[RainDog]

Dang, Windpower.. there you caught RainDog perusing and promoting racist information and topics again.... 

[Sassy]

Not fair, that offends me more than you answering my legitimate questions     BTW, I am really interested in knowing how the 1st "couple" (whatever type of creature that "evolved" 1st) evolved over time, at the same time, as male & female, in order to be able to perfectly pro-create at the right time, to even want, or know to pro-create

quote from Raindog:

You assume a jump to males and females from no sexual reproduction at all. It is a huge, slow, diverse range of thousands of different reproduction mechanisms, but I'll gladly disrespect and compact it down nearly to the point of silliness for brevity's sake:

First there were simple asexually reproducing organisms that found benefits from swapping genes (as bacteria still do today) Then full-fledged sexual reproduction without sexes (The sending out of spores, as amoebas and slime molds still do today). Then slow differentiation between sex cells but not individuals. Then slow differentiation between individuals to specialize in having one or the other sex. Then to ever greater differences between males and females that we find in vertebrates, and mammals, such as ourselves.

Happy with that? No, I didn't think so. I'm not a biologist, so my understanding is only basic.

Problem is, I think you're assuming the question to be unanswerable, which it isn't, and would reject even the most comprehensive explanation offered.

Please don't ruin your reputation for erudite arguments...

Gee, thanks!  

I guess I misunderstood you when you were calling the person I quoted with all the questions, as being the "charlatan" - I disagree, I think he had some very valid questions.

Your explanation is indeed very basic & I'm aware that is the basic argument evolutionists always use but you still haven't answered my original question...  if you have only some of the genetic info for something, it is only partial - how does it work?  

Take some non-biological items - like a watch or a car - it took someone creating them - if one part is missing, it won't work.  Those are very simple machines compared to even a one-celled organism - have you ever studied the flagellum?  It is incredibly complex - so how do minuscule parts of even a one celled organism, over time, get together & start working together when they are just random parts to begin with?  Take the cell, in & of itself, that, too, is incredibly complex - look at the billions of different types of cells in the world - how did all the little pieces for each cell eventually get together & start working in a cohesive way?  It boggles my mind that they randomly got together over millions & billions of years - where's the proof?   That comes back to the more complex - even asexual reproduction is complex - but supposedly evolution eventually created human beings or the most simplest forms of life that need the male/female to pro-create...  so how did a male & female both evolve at the same time to perform the complex act of procreation to bring a new life into the world just like themselves - where it took 1/2 the genetic info from the male & 1/2 the genetic info from the female & joined it together to create a replica of itself???  

And where is the proof?  All I keep hearing are the old, tired suppositions that are based on speculation because there is no true scientific proof!

[MountainDon]

I think where we are going matters more than where we came from.

I tend to believe things I can see, feel, touch, poke, etc.
At the same time I find myself saying prayers.

How it all came to be in the beginning; who the heck knows.

I don't think there's any one correct answer.

[Windpower]

"This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems. The fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by an any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them."

No, you do not understand. There is an 'outside influence' on everything.

For example in a plant light creates chemical energy that the plant uses to keep on living. Sunlight impacting non-living matter causes a return to randomness eg a dead leaf left in the sun will dry up and enventually turn to dust (randomized carbon molecules, traces of minerals etc etc)

http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html

Clausius coined the term "entropy" to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.
The active nature of the second law is intuitively easy to grasp and empirically demonstrate. If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop.


"The mention of "favored races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. There is no moral judgment involved."


You are incorrect.

From Charles Darwin's book "The Descent of Man"

quote

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. unquote


sounds like racism and eugenics to me

[StinkerBell]

Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?

Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins. These are philosophical or religious questions. Once again, this question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution. The claim of God as cause, which I assume is what you're getting at, raises the question of what caused God. If God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

To ignore ultimate origns how is that scientific?

[Sassy]

I think where we are going matters more than where we came from.

I tend to believe things I can see, feel, touch, poke, etc.
At the same time I find myself saying prayers.

How it all came to be in the beginning; who the heck knows.

I don't think there's any one correct answer.

So, with your conclusion, MtnDon, who's truth is true?  Is everything relative?  Is your statement "I don't think there's any one correct answer" true?  Your worldview does effect the way you think & live...  

Quote of Darwin's Origin of the Species that Windpower posted...  

"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race"

Darwin undermines his own evolutionary theory with just that statement!

[NM_Shooter]

I don't think there's any one correct answer.

I firmly believe that.  How could anyone possibly know the details?

[RainDog]

a statistical measure of the disorder of a closed system expressed
And where is the proof?  All I keep hearing are the old, tired suppositions that are based on speculation because there is no true scientific proof!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

You asked, and I provided.

Sassy, I'm sure, at this point, that you'll remain unconvinced by any and all of the evidence. If you want to abdicate your birthright to scientific progress, that's entirely up to you. I do, however, think it's somewhat presumptuous to expect me to continue to provide evidence and argument when you've decided beforehand to reject it.

How about we flip this? Your turn. You provide me with demonstrable evidence of Creationism. Give me one thing, any kind of observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, rather than repeatedly positing these talking points designed to create doubt, when there is none in the scientific field.

Deal?

[Sassy]

I'm reading that website right now 

[RainDog]

No, you do not understand. There is an 'outside influence' on everything.

Sorry. You can't just grab a thermodynamic quantity from physics and apply it that way to the study of living organisms. It doesn't work like that.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. unquote

sounds like racism and eugenics to me

Not at all. It's a scientific observation. Do you doubt that traits can be passed along genetically? Seriously?

It does sound a little mean-spirited, though, doesn't it? Well, until you remember that it was written in the context of 19th century England. They weren't bound by our highly developed sense of political correctness, y'know.

[MountainDon]

So, with your conclusion, MtnDon, who's truth is true?  Is everything relative?  Is your statement "I don't think there's any one correct answer" true?  Your worldview does effect the way you think & live...  

I seriously doubt we will ever know who's truth is the truth. It would be interesting and satisfying, I think, to know how our universe came to be.

One group of us is most comfortable believing the Big Bang theory, that we're more or less accidental creatures of what is called evolution. Many other groups of us are more comfortable to believe in an assortment of Gods or assorted divine theories.   The ancient Greeks had 12 main Gods, IIRC, and a sub-cast of many more. Today we refer to that as Greek Mythology. In another few thousand years, if we humans are still around (God willing? If so, whose?), who knows what mythology our period will be known as?

[poppy]

Sassy

In the book of Genesis, humans were created last.

I stand corrected. 

However, biblical literalists figure that creation took 6 24 hr. days, so not a whole lot of time between animals and people.

Besides, the first will be last, and the last will be first. 

[StinkerBell]

I asked......"Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?


The Answer......" Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins"

I find it funny being in a building forum that someone would skip on the critical foundation of science such as what caused the first effect.

[RainDog]

One group of us is most comfortable believing the Big Bang theory, that we're more or less accidental creatures of what is called evolution. Many other groups of us are more comfortable to believe in an assortment of Gods or assorted divine theories.   The ancient Greeks had 12 main Gods, IIRC, and a sub-cast of many more. Today we refer to that as Greek Mythology. In another few thousand years, if we humans are still around (God willing? If so, whose?), who knows what mythology our period will be known as?

What's interesting is this idea that evolution and religion are somehow mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. No one, for instance, debates whether plate tectonics contradict religion.

Science is concerned with the study of our physical universe. God transcends natural laws. God's existence is not a scientific question.

The Catholic Church's official position is that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict.

[Ernest T. Bass]

I believe God works in a very physical way, that even 'miracles' with no scientific explanation actually DO have a scientific explanation; one that is beyond our current knowledge and understanding. I believe evolution and creationism can and very likely do go hand-in-hand. But, I don't think anyone ever has or ever will come close to understanding how God set the whole process in motion... Arguing about it is pretty pointless.

[Sassy]

The Pope may believe in evolution & thus the Catholic church will follow along, but there is not a consensus about that among those who believe in the Bible.  I believe in micro-evolution - it is seen on a regular basis - it helps the species adapt to various circumstances, but macro-evolution - jumping from one species to another, acquiring increasing complexity - what is seen today is that changes/errors in the DNA often cause catastrophic problems with the organism.  The only way evolutionary scientists can ultimately support their theory is to throw in millions & billions of years and there is no way to prove or dispute that scientifically... no matter how much scientists introduce changes in a species, it can only be changed to a certain point & no more & if left alone, will revert back to it's original state.  (ie highly bred cows or plants end up becoming weaker, more prone to disease, often sterile)

I've spent the last three hours perusing the site you posted, Raindog...  http://www.talkorigins.org/  I know it would take me days, weeks, years, to really assimilate all of what they use as their defense/support/examples for evolution...  they try to use the scientific method, but it is really impossible, so they still resort back to conjecture, suppositions, theories, and of course, millions & billions of years.   I have a lot of background in the study of evolution as I had to study it while going through the nursing program - biology, microbiology, anatomy, physiology, inorganic & organic chemistry.  And I've been taught it in one way or another throughout my years of school.  Of course, I haven't studied it in depth like someone who has a doctorate in it or spent their lives pursuing it.  But I've studied it on my own throughout the years...

Their explanation of micro/macro-evolution - they totally miss the point of "irreducible complexity" - I mentioned that before - how does a mutation/adaptation that occurs so gradually due to the complex steps to go from one point to the other - how does that organism continue on with a change that is not complete & more than likely would destroy it until the complete change occurred?  And how do several organisms end up making the same changes?  Which leads to how do you get a compatible male/female organism to evolve at the same time in order to procreate?  All I read was about complex tables of phylogeny, trees, this might have happened, that could have happened, we speculate this could have happened, we theorize, postulate, hypothesize...  

In reading about Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil between reptiles & birds, there seems to be much conflicting info by countless scientists.  And of course, they really tear into the Christian writers who have questioned the evidence.  If someone were to find a fossil of an armadillo in the future, what might they make of that?

No matter how they try to explain evolution/adaptation/mutation, how does the organism survive the 1st changes that could upset the whole life process?  

You asked me to support my viewpoint - easy "In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth & made man a living soul."

Here is a link you might look at - tear it up to your heart's content, if you can...  http://www.doesgodexist.org/  

[Sassy]

I believe God works in a very physical way, that even 'miracles' with no scientific explanation actually DO have a scientific explanation; one that is beyond our current knowledge and understanding. I believe evolution and creationism can and very likely do go hand-in-hand. But, I don't think anyone ever has or ever will come close to understanding how God set the whole process in motion... Arguing about it is pretty pointless.

I also believe that God works in a very physical way in our lives.   

I don't really consider this "arguing"    but an important discussion of origins - it could have eternal consequences!   

[ScottA]

[Sassy]

 

[NM_Shooter]

Hey.. wait a minute.  You mean the Flintstones is not a documentary?!?!

[RainDog]

Here is a link you might look at - tear it up to your heart's content, if you can...  http://www.doesgodexist.org/  

Sassy, I do hope that you aren't under the impression that I'm arguing against the existence of a higher power.

That's never been my object.

I'm at odds with the faulty methodology and tactics, the fallacious arguments and twisting of data used to discredit evolution.

I've no hidden agenda.

[glenn kangiser]

Possibly you are related to the missing link, like me, RainDog?   

[poppy]

My friends tell me that I have something missing; not sure if it is a link, though.

[Sassy]

Here is a link you might look at - tear it up to your heart's content, if you can...  http://www.doesgodexist.org/  

Sassy, I do hope that you aren't under the impression that I'm arguing against the existence of a higher power.

That's never been my object.

I'm at odds with the faulty methodology and tactics, the fallacious arguments and twisting of data used to discredit evolution.

I've no hidden agenda.

I'm glad to hear that, Raindog...  the question is what higher power will you follow or believe?  Or is it just out there?  Those were questions that nagged me all my life - I feel at peace that I've found the truth...

There are so many questions that don't & won't have answers until we get on the other side of eternity.   I feel the same way with evolutionists & their methods - not that all their research is wrong - but the cop-out that they MUST resort to of millions & billions of years that cannot be tested.  If there was a big bang - what was the atmosphere like, etc?  Which also points to a beginning. If there was nothing, how do you get something out of nothing?  I could go on - that's why I will always consider evolution a "belief" that takes a step of faith while not ruling out that ALL the science is wrong... 

[Don_P]

First causes are unknowable by either party, maybe someday. There is a difference in science and religion here, religion explains, science begins with "I don't know". "I don't know" is not very satisfying to someone wanting an explanation. We like to know, or to feel we know.

Would God work outside of his rules in second causes? For me, no, but I've seen quite a range of opinions. Could a creator work through an evolutionary model? No problem in my world, or in any of the mainstream religions that I'm aware of. This actually goes back to Augustine. If the book of nature shows that our understanding of the Bible is in error, we need to correct our understanding otherwise it will look foolish and become a footnote in history. That is obviously not a direct quote, but you'll recognize it when you sift through his volumes. This is a valid concern. It is good to understand the difference in hypothesis and theory.

Newton was a church canon, Galileo's acid tongue might have caused him difficulty but he was the friend of 2 popes, Keppler, Mendel... science was borne out of the study, by churchmen as often as anyone, of what Augustine called "the book of nature". What better way to understand and grow closer to one's creator. I was looking for some info on LeMaitre, the priest who formulated the Big Bang Theory, and happened upon a well written page;
http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/NormLevan/s3-annot.htm

An interesting side read would be to look up Draper and White. This is the pair that started us down the muddy road we find ourselves on here. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, this is hamartia and it does bind. There are better ways to think and to think about others.