Evilution Being Observed

[white_raven23]

Hey Txviper......

 

You believe in talking snakes and magic fruit......but you will use the products of science to blab your ignorance.

 

I find that pretty pathetic. If there were even SOME logic.....it would at least be ironic. Instead....only pathetic.

 

Enjoy the attention, it's all you're really here for. And you aren't even in a debate forum.....what's the matter? Too hot in there?

[NotBlinded]

Enter Kent Hovind (completely missing the point) "That's just evidence of lost information. That's not evidence of information increasing in the genome."

Ohh... So he's saying that we have that information to begin with and god can choose if we're hairy or not?

 

If we weren't meant to be hairy, why have the gene? Sheesh....

[Mr. Neil]

Well, I'm just commenting on the way he and other creationists think. They disqualify vestigial, lost, or rare traits, because they think of evolution as always gaining complexity. If there are remnants of old traits, they just say, "Oh, that's losing complexity; not gaining." It just goes to show that they completely miss the point.

 

Besides, it paints an increasingly humorous depiction of the Christian worldview. It's times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Christian, because I'd hate to have to conform my beliefs around stuff like this. Could you image? Creationists insist that any feature found in the human genome could be traced back to Adam. It's imparative that no new traits ever develop. Ever! EVAR!!! So therefore, Adam and Eve must have had hypertrichosis. It could not have developed later. Christians have no other choice but to assume that pre-flood man looked like the Wolfman.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, you're right MrN. They should have had the "vestigial tail" too. I wonder why the Bible doesn't mention that?

[NotBlinded]

Well, I'm just commenting on the way he and other creationists think. They disqualify vestigial, lost, or rare traits, because they think of evolution as always gaining complexity. If there are remnants of old traits, they just say, "Oh, that's losing complexity; not gaining." It just goes to show that they completely miss the point.

 

Besides, it paints an increasingly humorous depiction of the Christian worldview. It's times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Christian, because I'd hate to have to conform my beliefs around stuff like this. Could you image? Creationists insist that any feature found in the human genome could be traced back to Adam. It's imparative that no new traits ever develop. Ever! EVAR!!! So therefore, Adam and Eve must have had hypertrichosis. It could not have developed later. Christians have no other choice but to assume that pre-flood man looked like the Wolfman.

I'm sorry Neil...I wasn't directing my sarcasm at you. It was directed at your favorite people of all time! hehehe But, thanks for explaining that for me. I didn't understand that they understood (used loosely!) it that way. I just want to see if I understand it correctly...they think that we are as complex now as we were then or will ever be and all these traits are already within us. But, how would a dormant trait becoming active be seen as losing complexity? Is being hairy less complex than non-hairy? Are they really that warped in their thinking...nevermind, that was a completely stupid question!

 

Yes, you're right MrN. They should have had the "vestigial tail" too. I wonder why the Bible doesn't mention that?

Because apes don't have tails! Waas' da matta wit u?

[Amanda]

 

Amazing NBBTB!

 

That's interesting how we do store ancient genes. I've been afraid we may lose some capabilities due to their lack of recognition. Maybe there's hope we're not.

 

Here are some mutations now in progress. Look what's crawling out of the water here , and here , and here .

[Zach]

Mudskippers are pretty cool, too. This is an amphibious adaptation that mirrors the adaptation of our lobe-finned ancestors.

 

Also, Desmond Morris suggests that humans are neotenous apes.

[Amanda]

Mudskippers are pretty cool, too. This is an amphibious adaptation that mirrors the adaptation of our lobe-finned ancestors.

 

Also, Desmond Morris suggests that humans are neotenous apes.

 

Hi Zach!

 

I loved the mudskippers! They climb on land, and flip themselves up 60 cm on land, as well as crawl!

 

I never heard of the neotenous apes, so I did a little research. Hey, it's pretty interesting. Looks like we would look even older had we not been neotenous... if this theory explains our evolutionary process. I got this info from here

 

In that spirit I will focus on the trait of neoteny -- or the retention of childlike characteristics in mature members of a species. This process appears so amplified in humanity that we have been called the neotenous clan of apes. Humans much more closely resemble chimp or gorilla infants than adults of either species, e.g. in the smooth, vertical dome of the forehead and the relative ease of bipedality displayed by very young apes. Furthermore, even aged humans often retain a plasticity of behavior that is typically found among animals only in the young. Human emphasis on learned, rather than inherited, behavior, has been widely accepted as a chief driver of this trend, requiring our minds to remain supple and receptive for ever-longer spans.

[txviper]

“Firstly, evolutionary theory does not hold that proteins form "accidentally." Mutations introduce variability, but selection is no accident- it's directly related to the demands of the environment.”

 

Protein formation has nothing to do with mutations or selection. Mutations are DNA replication errors.

 

But yes, evolutionary theory has to hold that hyper-complex enzymes assembled themselves accidentally, randomly, by chance or however else it might be described.

 

 

 

Now, it is true that polymerase complexes (in most organisms) contain "proofreading" components. Your assertion is that the existence of proofreading capability is evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory.

 

No, the function of polymerase is to prevent mutations from occurring, and thereby prevent evolution from happening at all. This is not a theoretical assertion, it is a known fact and an understood function.

 

 

 

“However, this is not the case. Evolutionary theory predicts that for eukaryotic organisms, especially those that rely on sexual selection as the main source of genetic variance”

 

Here we are back to the selection goddess. Selection has to have a mutation in order to select anything.

 

 

 

“it would be less beneficial to have a high basal mutation rate in somatic genome transcription.”

 

The function of polymerase is not to limit mutations. It is to eliminate them. It does not find and evaluate copy errors. It repairs or removes them. The ones that slip by are associated with disease or other undesirable consequences.

 

But it is interesting that in order to make the TOE accommodate replication enzyme function, inhibitions have to be supposed for the only mechanism evolution can rely on to accomplish change.

 

 

 

“For prokaryotic organisms, however, basal genomic mutation is predicted to be the only source of genetic variation, and should be higher than in eukaryotic organisms.”

 

Evolutionary theorists might like to make such a prediction, but the fossil record supports the opposite.

 

“....this view was easily consistent with the most straightforward interpretation of the fossil record. As reviewed by Schopf and Knoll elsewhere in this volume, unquestionable prokaryotes, by all available measures indistinguishable from modern cyanobacteria, appeared more than 3.5 billion years ago (Schopf, 1994; Knoll, 1994).”

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051916/html/3.html

 

Either assumptive dating methods are wrong or basal mutation predictions are wrong. I trust that both are just wrong religious premises.

 

 

 

"We conclude that there are significantly higher mutation rates in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes, especially eukaryotes which engage in sexual selection."

 

You just finished saying that “Evolutionary theory predicts that for eukaryotic organisms…..it would be less beneficial to have a high basal mutation rate”.

 

Eukaryotes don’t “engage in sexual selection”. Their DNA replicates and they divide in the mitosis process. I doubt e-cells ever even consider dating each other.

[Mr. Neil]

Protein formation has nothing to do with mutations or selection. Mutations are DNA replication errors.

Very good, Sherlock. You win a cookie. You say this like you're correcting Zach, and yet I don't see Zach making a claim to the contrary.

 

Oh wait... You're still trying to sneak abiogenesis in the backdoor, aren't you?

 

But yes, evolutionary theory has to hold that hyper-complex enzymes assembled themselves accidentally, randomly, by chance or however else it might be described.

No, it god-damn doesn't! Stop contradicting people just for the sake of contradicting people!

 

This is you, once again, confusing two separate fields of science, because you're ignorant, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

No, the function of polymerase is to prevent mutations from occurring, and thereby prevent evolution from happening at all. This is not a theoretical assertion, it is a known fact and an understood function.

Again, no shit, Sherlock, but once more, you make it like you're correcting Zach, when in fact he said nothing to the contrary. The function you described is the "proofreading" function that Zach just mentioned!

 

I should hasten to add that "prevent" is not the same as "eliminate". Surely you're not insisting that mutations don't happen. Mutation happens at every generation.

 

Here we are back to the selection goddess. Selection has to have a mutation in order to select anything.

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! This response is utterly meaningless. You've said this like a billion times, and I've yet to figure out what point you're actually making here.

 

You seem to be stuck on this mental track that since mutations are random, that means that evolution is random. But it's not! Evolution has a guiding application called natural selection, which is not random. Mutation only provides the variability for evolution. It is not the process itself.

 

Please listen and stop trying to win. If you have to keep misrepresenting your opposition to make an argument, then you don't have an argument. You basically neuter your own argument when you do that. Understand!?

 

Good gravy, LEARN SOMETHING!!!

 

 

Either assumptive dating methods are wrong or basal mutation predictions are wrong. I trust that both are just wrong religious premises.

Stop projecting.

 

Now, I'll let Zach handle your dubious quote about cyanobacteria, but I will grant that if you arrive at two conclusions that contradict one another, the natural assumption would be to assume that one or the other is wrong. Funny it is that you've decided that both are wrong.

 

Way to reveal your bias to us.

 

Seriously, I can't believe you're still trying. Your arguments are worthless.

[crazy-tiger]

“Firstly, evolutionary theory does not hold that proteins form "accidentally." Mutations introduce variability, but selection is no accident- it's directly related to the demands of the environment.”

 

Protein formation has nothing to do with mutations or selection. Mutations are DNA replication errors.

 

But yes, evolutionary theory has to hold that hyper-complex enzymes assembled themselves accidentally, randomly, by chance or however else it might be described.

Environmentally guided natural selection. It's not random, chance or by accident, so now you can stop using those terms.

 

Or maybe not, since you've had this pointed out to you so many times before but you still insist on using that strawman argument...

Now, it is true that polymerase complexes (in most organisms) contain "proofreading" components. Your assertion is that the existence of proofreading capability is evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory.

 

No, the function of polymerase is to prevent mutations from occurring, and thereby prevent evolution from happening at all. This is not a theoretical assertion, it is a known fact and an understood function.

Does it stop mutations completely? NO!

Mutations still happen, even with this enzyme, so is it a problem for evolution? NO!

Is your continued use of this argument proof that you will not accept that you are wrong? YES!

“However, this is not the case. Evolutionary theory predicts that for eukaryotic organisms, especially those that rely on sexual selection as the main source of genetic variance”

 

Here we are back to the selection goddess. Selection has to have a mutation in order to select anything.

And your problem is? Oh yeah, you seem to be using the "this enzyme stops mutations completely" strawman...

 

Don't you get it? You have made an incorrect assumption, been proven wrong, and are now being laughed at because you will not accept your error.

 

 

One could go so far as to say that you are dogmatic in your beliefs about evolution...

“it would be less beneficial to have a high basal mutation rate in somatic genome transcription.”

 

The function of polymerase is not to limit mutations. It is to eliminate them. It does not find and evaluate copy errors. It repairs or removes them. The ones that slip by are associated with disease or other undesirable consequences.

 

But it is interesting that in order to make the TOE accommodate replication enzyme function, inhibitions have to be supposed for the only mechanism evolution can rely on to accomplish change.

Well, you finally admit that it doesn't stop all mutations... but you now insist that the ones it doesn't stop are the "bad" ones.

That's very sloppy, isn't it? You might be excused for thinking that this enzyme came about by chance rather than being designed that way...

 

Oh, and what decides whether a mutation is "bad"? Environmentally guided natural selection... if the environment changes just a little, which it does all the time, then so does the "class" that the mutation is put in.

For someone who thinks he knows a lot about evolution, you seem to have a very static outlook on things.

“For prokaryotic organisms, however, basal genomic mutation is predicted to be the only source of genetic variation, and should be higher than in eukaryotic organisms.”

 

Evolutionary theorists might like to make such a prediction, but the fossil record supports the opposite.

 

“....this view was easily consistent with the most straightforward interpretation of the fossil record. As reviewed by Schopf and Knoll elsewhere in this volume, unquestionable prokaryotes, by all available measures indistinguishable from modern cyanobacteria, appeared more than 3.5 billion years ago (Schopf, 1994; Knoll, 1994).”

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051916/html/3.html

 

Either assumptive dating methods are wrong or basal mutation predictions are wrong. I trust that both are just wrong religious premises.

And? Like it's been pointed out to you on several occasions, SINCE THE ENVIRONMENT THEY ARE IN NOW IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT THEY WERE IN THEN, THERE IS LITTLE TO NO SELECTION PRESSURE FOR THEM TO CHANGE.

 

Get that through your thick skull, (which seems to have evolved over time to protect your beliefs from the facts) and stop using non-problems to attack evolution.

"We conclude that there are significantly higher mutation rates in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes, especially eukaryotes which engage in sexual selection."

 

You just finished saying that “Evolutionary theory predicts that for eukaryotic organisms…..it would be less beneficial to have a high basal mutation rate”.

QUOTE-MINING!!

 

Zach did NOT say that there are higher basal mutation rates in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes.

Eukaryotes don’t “engage in sexual selection”. Their DNA replicates and they divide in the mitosis process. I doubt e-cells ever even consider dating each other.

Well, I guess you don't engage in sexual selection, since YOU are an eukaryotic organism...

 

 

Ever get the feeling that you don't know what you were talking about? Ever get the feeling that your ignorance has just made you look like a complete idiot?

 

Now you know why we're laughing at you...

[Antlerman]

Protein formation has nothing to do with mutations or selection. Mutations are DNA replication errors.

<snip>

Ah, so this is where you've gone off to! I'm not going to debate the specifics of science with you as I am not a scientist, and I sincerely doubt you are either, but I certainly do want to make an observation then bow out of this discussion.

 

I find it positively revealing that you as a novice take on the combined weight of the entire scientific community. These particular ideologies of your religious camp are nothing new and have been summarily dealt with and rejected by the larger scientific community on scientfic grounds. Yet... here you, a novice are, trying to argue dead issues with non-scientists to try to convince them of ------ spiritual truth? WFT? You think that you can gain any ground by going after the general masses to convince them of your views that the specialists have rejected already as quackery? That's a political move!! Nice! Is that what's going on here?

 

Answer this one question: What does all this have to do with "Faith"? If all your doctrines were facts, well, that settles it then, faith is unnecessary and you have just made the bible wrong for teaching that you must have faith. Congratulations. Have you run out of things to say on the subject of faith??? Or is this about something else, like being "right" maybe?

[Taphophilia]

I have a part Maine Coon Kitty. What does that have to do with Evolution being observed? Let me 'splain.

 

The Maine Coon Kitties were once your regular house cats that early settlers brought to the America's. There is a legend that regular house cats and raccoons interbred to make the cat. Interbreeding between species isn't possible, so there has to be another explaination for the origination of the cat. Natural selection, Viola!

 

In order to survive in the harsh Maine Winters they had to genetically adapt to their environment and develop traits to ensure their survival in the short summers and long, snow packed winters of Maine.

 

The Norwegian Forest Cat also went through a similar evolutionary process. Although, the Norwegian Forest Cat and The Maine Coon are very similar cats, they are not the same type of cat. They each evolved seperately but in similar environments. They also share the common ancestor of the regular house kitty.

 

Taph

[crazy-tiger]

I have a part Maine Coon Kitty. What does that have to do with Evolution being observed? Let me 'splain.

 

The Maine Coon Kitties were once your regular house cats that early settlers brought to the America's. There is a legend that regular house cats and raccoons interbred to make the cat. Interbreeding between species isn't possible, so there has to be another explaination for the origination of the cat. Natural selection, Viola!

 

In order to survive in the harsh Maine Winters they had to genetically adapt to their environment and develop traits to ensure their survival in the short summers and long, snow packed winters of Maine.

 

The Norwegian Forest Cat also went through a similar evolutionary process. Although, the Norwegian Forest Cat and The Maine Coon are very similar cats, they are not the same type of cat. They each evolved seperately but in similar environments. They also share the common ancestor of the regular house kitty.

 

Taph

<fundie> *whines* but they're still cats and despite the changes coming about in just a few hundred years there's never going to be enough changes to make a new kind of animal and you use your religion to interpret the facts differently to the truth and mutations get stopped by enzymes and they're still cats and God said they'd always be the same kind and no-one's ever seen a new kind and you're just trying to prove your religion and you can't prove they didn't interbreed and the genetic information was there all along because evolution means you lose information cos no-one's ever show any gain of information and there wasn't enough time since the universe is only 6000 years old and the Bible says you're wrong and tells us not to listen to mans wisdom because it's foolish and is from the Devil and there's no evidence for evolution and I'll only believe in evolution when a cat gives birth to a dog but that's not gonna happen cos evolution is just a religion that you believe in with faith and I know this because I don't know anything about evolution except what I've quote-mined from creationist websites and they know what they're talking about because God tells them stuff and you're mean for not believing me and asking questions I can't answer and you make me cry because I'm just trying to save you and Jesus loves you and evolution can't be true cos monkeys still exist and I'm not related to monkeys because God made us in his image and He doesn't look like a monkey...</fundie>

 

 

 

*passes out through lack of breath*

[Amanda]

Don't you get it? You have made an incorrect assumption, been proven wrong, and are now being laughed at because you will not accept your error.

 

Crazy Tiger, I am NOT laughing at him. I understand.

 

It is similar to when I first came and thought God animated life... and then I found out about abiogenesis from a poster here. Next, I did my own research... and, how could I argue with what I found on my own.

 

It threatened a very core belief in God to me, even though I already had believed in evolution! When I finally realized the implications of the abiogenesis research, I just had to accept the truth and redefine my beliefs. Initially that seems to give an unstable internal feeling for awhile ... which I don't think you understand.

 

Of course, it doesn't mean I had to give up "God", just redefine it closer to the truth for me.

 

What I'm curious to know, is if Tx Viper were to consider this info to be true, and I KNOW you and Mr. Neal are very accurate... what deeper meaning would that have for Tx Viper? IMO, THAT is the real issue.

[Ouroboros]

Initially that seems to give an unstable internal feeling for awhile ... which I don't think you understand.

Actually Amanda, I think that most ex-christians do understand that feeling. We have all gone through it, when the "stable" and "solid" position of faith started to crumble.

[crazy-tiger]

Don't you get it? You have made an incorrect assumption, been proven wrong, and are now being laughed at because you will not accept your error.

 

Crazy Tiger, I am NOT laughing at him. I understand.

 

It is similar to when I first came and thought God animated life... and then I found out about abiogenesis from a poster here. Next, I did my own research... and, how could I argue with what I found on my own.

That is one thing that tx isn't doing... sure, he's researching it, (in a very broad sense of the term) but he's doing it simply to bolster his belief.

 

To be honest, when you're researching for the express purpose of finding what you want to find, are you really researching?

It threatened a very core belief in God to me, even though I already had believed in evolution! When I finally realized the implications of the abiogenesis research, I just had to accept the truth and redefine my beliefs. Initially that seems to give an unstable internal feeling for awhile ... which I don't think you understand.

But I do... I went through the exact same process myself. Admittedly, I wasn't coming from a YEC viewpoint, nor had I been so "groomed" into the worldview... but neither was I a full-grown mature adult.

 

What I'm doing now, is expecting full-grown adults to be able to see what I found when I was 8. What I'm doing is talking to them with the expectation of roughly the same level of intellect that I have. (as in, I try not to talk down to them, nor treat them like legendary thinkers)

 

What I so often fail to understand, and I have to keep reminding myself of it, is that even smart people can be bloody stupid. (and I've come out with some whoppers in my time...)

Should I lower my estimates of their intelligence, and risk insulting them, or stay as it is, and actually complement them?

Of course, it doesn't mean I had to give up "God", just redefine it closer to the truth for me.

 

What I'm curious to know, is if Tx Viper were to consider this info to be true, and I KNOW you and Mr. Neal are very accurate... what deeper meaning would that have for Tx Viper? IMO, THAT is the real issue.

From what tx has said, it wouldn't be that big a deal for him, since he's already gone through just such a change when he went from OEC to YEC.

 

To be honest, it'd mean that he's got it wrong, again... and that kind of thing is very hard to deal with.

 

 

 

The question is, why do we laugh at him? When someone comes in and claims to follow the facts where they lead, then proceeds to ignore the facts when they lead away from his beliefs, then they've been a fool... and what do you do with a fool? (especially a fool who insists on staying a fool?)

[Taphophilia]

<fundie> *whines* but they're still cats and despite the changes coming about in just a few hundred years there's never going to be enough changes to make a new kind of animal and you use your religion to interpret the facts differently to the truth and mutations get stopped by enzymes and they're still cats and God said they'd always be the same kind and no-one's ever seen a new kind and you're just trying to prove your religion and you can't prove they didn't interbreed and the genetic information was there all along because evolution means you lose information cos no-one's ever show any gain of information and there wasn't enough time since the universe is only 6000 years old and the Bible says you're wrong and tells us not to listen to mans wisdom because it's foolish and is from the Devil and there's no evidence for evolution and I'll only believe in evolution when a cat gives birth to a dog but that's not gonna happen cos evolution is just a religion that you believe in with faith and I know this because I don't know anything about evolution except what I've quote-mined from creationist websites and they know what they're talking about because God tells them stuff and you're mean for not believing me and asking questions I can't answer and you make me cry because I'm just trying to save you and Jesus loves you and evolution can't be true cos monkeys still exist and I'm not related to monkeys because God made us in his image and He doesn't look like a monkey...</fundie>

 

 

 

*passes out through lack of breath*

 

Too Funny CT,

 

In case you've never seen a Maine Coon Cat:

 

 

 

This cat is normal size. There paws are like snowshoes with tufts of hair between the toes to walk on top of snow.

[Mr. Neil]

What I'm curious to know, is if Tx Viper were to consider this info to be true, and I KNOW you and Mr. Neal are very accurate... what deeper meaning would that have for Tx Viper? IMO, THAT is the real issue.

Well, it would mean that he was wrong, and I don't think he wants to admit that. There've been a lot of instances on this forum where we've just beaten the bajeezus out of him, and he just will not budge.

 

For us, it's not a problem. Science is a work in progress. We never assume that we know everything or that any one of our assumptions are complete. There's always more to learn, and more often than not, it means that what we thought was wrong.

 

One of the things that I don't think fundamentalists/creationists get is that scientific beliefs are not held in the same authoritative regard as dogmatic beliefs. We've seen time and time again that Txviper is so lost in his own belief system that he automatically assumes that everyone else holds their beliefs the same way.

 

The way to approach science is to think of every as "This appears to be true". It's tentative. You accept it them on a conditional basis.

 

The next step in Christian thinking is to accuse the scientifically literate person of having faith in his assumptions. In his mind, he thinks, "If the theory of evolution is held tentatively, then why are teaching it to children as the truth?" This again shows that the apologist is trying to sneak in his accusation that science is authoritative.

 

And yet, the only thing the scientist is saying is that, to the best of our knowledge, based on observations, this appears to be what's true; evolution. This is not any different than how any other scientific theory is presented.

 

In fact, the absurdity of this accusation, that science is religious and that tentativeness is weak, is that these are processes that we have no choice but to use in every day life. You have no choice but to make assumption on regularity. Whenever you type "ex-christian.net" into your address bar, you expect to pop up at this forum. That's because you're making an assumption based on past experience. You have to make assumptions like this in order to function. If you did not make tentative assumptions based on regularity, then you'd be reduced to a catatonic state. It would be impossible to learn anything.

 

So we see that Christians, like Txviper, are actually accusing us of relying on the assumptions that we've made based on our regular interaction with the world around us, and he's mislabeling this reliance as "faith". He's trying to blur the line between assumptions that are made based on repeatable regularity and assumptions that are made on no basis of rationality whatsoever; i.e., faith. Or as John Dill puts it, he's accusing us of being human.

 

He's muddying the waters. He's trying to confuse assumptions made by choice with assumptions that you have no choice but to make. This is absurd, and it reveals the depths of desperation that fundies will go to in order to justify their beliefs, that they will do so at the expense of rational thinking.

[Amanda]

One of the things that I don't think fundamentalists/creationists get is that scientific beliefs are not held in the same authoritative regard as dogmatic beliefs. We've seen time and time again that Txviper is so lost in his own belief system that he automatically assumes that everyone else holds their beliefs the same way.

 

Mr. Neil, you and others here have seemed objective in debating. I can see your flexible approach to science, and glad you see it is not the same approach as fundamentalist. Crazy Tiger changed his Bible beliefs with only 8 years invested. How many years do you think most fundamentalist have invested in it, that post here? That being their core foundation, what is built on top of that? Everything! I'm amazed they're strong enough to even come here!

 

I have a dear fundamentalist friend, very successful 40 year old with a MBA... who refuses to have a friendly discussion of one single thing about the Bible with me! She says she gets too upset for days, and she doesn't want to talk to me about that.

 

Once on a post, HanSolo said something to me like... and what would you do if you found out there was no God? I couldn't even imagine it! I just had to redefine it as I went along... although that is no easy task, it takes time, but I am finding myself happy with the God that is evolving for me.

 

The beliefs I had coming here, did allow for the evolution theory. The shock of just abiogenesis was wierd for me though. The implications of evolution AND abiogenesis at the expense of jepordizing going to eternal hell may make poor Tx Viper fall out of his chair, if he didn't run away first! However, I do understand it. I hope he sticks around.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

The beliefs I had coming here, did allow for the evolution theory. The shock of just abiogenesis was wierd for me though. The implications of evolution AND abiogenesis at the expense of jepordizing going to eternal hell may make poor Tx Viper fall out of his chair, if he didn't run away first! However, I do understand it. I hope he sticks around.

 

BLASPHEMY HOW DARE YOU MAKE FUN OF TXVIPER. YOU BELIEVE IN EVILUTION. YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. YOU ARE GONNA SUFFER IN HELL

[Lycorth]

In case you've never seen a Maine Coon Cat:

 

 

 

This cat is normal size. There paws are like snowshoes with tufts of hair between the toes to walk on top of snow.

 

Jesus fucking Christ.

[Amanda]

In case you've never seen a Maine Coon Cat:

 

 

 

This cat is normal size. There paws are like snowshoes with tufts of hair between the toes to walk on top of snow.

 

Jesus fucking Christ.

 

That 'little' kitty cat may even cause the wolf to step back?

 

[Lycorth]

Nah - I like kitties... especially with BBQ sauce...

 

In truth, those were my first thoughts upon seeing the big kitty, so I had to post them. A huge housecat is always a surprise to city boys like me, who are used to the miniature kind.

 

I bet they make fun pets

[Mr. Neil]

And another thing that drives me nuts is that Txviper keeps trying to treat evolution the way he treats Genesis, which is like that of a story. Evolution is not a story. Evolution is a phenomenon that happens under certain conditions. That's all the claim is meant to say.

 

The "story" that Txviper keeps mislabeling as "evolution" is the story of Earth's history, which is assembled from facts contributed from various different fields of science, such as geology, cosmology, astronomy, and physics. I'm being tremendously general here, but the point is that it's not just something that's cooked up behind a single door at a laboratory marked "Evolution History Science".

 

Txviper has not even yet discovered the absurdity of trying to pin alleged carbon dating inaccuracies on evolution. The way in which certain isotopes are dated has absolutely nothing to do with how a biologist determines relation between species.

 

In fact, the amount of data that biologists have today, linking all of life together is strong enough that if the various dating methods were proven wrong tomorrow, IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE! Evolution rises or falls on the fact that genetic commonality exists and that there's a mechanism that accounts for this commonality. It is not dependant upon whether or not scientists know how old the Earth is.

 

Again, Txviper would say, "No old Earth means no evolution", but that's him just trying to treat evolution like a story, again, and thus he assumes that evolution rests on data that I already said it does not. You might notice that he does the same thing with abiogenesis. He thinks we need to know how life began before we can know how life changes. The only assumption we need, though, in order to hypothesize that life changes is that life exists.

 

The argument that we can't know this without knowing that is the creationist's attempt to tell scientists how to do their jobs, and it demands a rather unrealistic expectation of how the scientist should assemble his facts, as though he's obligated to start at the beginning of time before he can make his theory. It would be sort of like telling a physicist that he's not allowed to make a theory of gravity until he knows how the universe began. The job of the scientist is only to say that a phenomenon exists; not where it came from.

 

Like all fundy-dundies, Txviper doesn't understand the false dichotomy he appeals to. He assumes that if an antique Earth can be defeated, then a young Earth can be slipped into the default position. But this is a fallacious way of thinking, because creationists are not rationally permitted to fill the voids of ignorance with whatever belief they happen to think is correct. To do so would be to disqualify themselves from science (not like they haven't already). In science, if you don't know something, then the correct answer is, "I don't know."

 

If it turned out that dating methods were false, then the only thing we'd have to admit would be that we don't know how old the Earth is, but we still know that things evolve.

 

The fact that Txviper has to continue pretending as though evolution is a theory of Earth history is merely to mask the fact that he's actually opposed to every field of science and to the methodology of science itself. After all, Txviper would have us confine our thoughts to scripture, ignoring any conflicting data that would lead us astray. That alone is why creationism can never be science.