|
God and Evolution.. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by kewlness
It is hard to believe that by chance, you "evolved" into what you are today. There has to be something that made everything. The atheist might say then "where did God come from then?". I would respond, that God is eternal and has always existed. |
I hate hearing this argument. If you can accept that God always existed, then why can't you believe that "everything" (i.e. the universe) always existed? What possible difference can you assume between one and the other? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJScottKeith
He is a Christian Scientiest and basically takes 15+ hours of solid science and facts to debunk evolution and many other myths. |
The three main arguments that religious "scientists" like to use are:
- Creation implies creator
- Probability of evolution is too low
- There was once nothingness, and someone had to create something out of that nothingness (this argument seems inherently self-defeating, but people use it anyway).
All of these arguments have been thoroughly debunked... you need only take a look at some of the threads in the political forum. |
|
|
| DJ Silhouette |
Personally, I believe that since "the lord works in mysterious ways" that "God" or whomever or whatever's in contol, caused apes to evolve into humans for example.
...or something:rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJScottKeith
Good thread, impressed with how mature people are being thus far.
First, if you are curious about evolution etc. I would HIGHLY recommend you check this out: www.drdino.com His (Dr Kent Hovind) DVD set on creation is incredible. He is a Christian Scientiest and basically takes 15+ hours of solid science and facts to debunk evolution and many other myths. Its really interesting too. Also, his material can be copied and distributed for FREE, he purposly has not put a copyright on it for this reason. But if you want a brand new set, you can buy it off his website or listen to his broadcasts. The debates with other scientists and evolutionists are very interesting too. I'm not saying that this DVD set is THE answer to anything, but just a good example of what science exists to prove creation.
|
Ahh, yes, the illustrius Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino! What a great intellectual mind of our time! Graduated with a PhD at Patriot University:
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/patriot.htm
Classic Christian diploma mill. His credentials are quite suspect:
| quote: | Kent Hovind
(b. 1953)
Kent Hovind is a young-earth creationist who gives frequent public lectures on evolution and creationism. He is well-known for repeating the claim that the remains of a basking shark found by Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand were actually those of a recently deceased plesiosaur.
Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
|
You should read what some people have to say about him in this forum:
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000094.html
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000017.html#4
I encourage you to read them all in their entirety, not just the parts you want to believe.
Honestly, nothing against Christianity, but you must attempt to separate matters of faith from scientific observation.
A little off topic: Thought this was kinda funny:
| quote: | 2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
|
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Ahh, yes, the illustrius Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino! What a great intellectual mind of our time! Graduated with a PhD at Patriot University:
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/patriot.htm
Classic Christian diploma mill. His credentials are quite suspect:
|
I've eaten in that cafeteria before ... they make a mean hamburger.
| quote: |
]Originally posted by DJ Silhouette
Personally, I believe that since "the lord works in mysterious ways" that "God" or whomever or whatever's in contol, caused apes to evolve into humans for example.
...or something
|
Hahaha. |
|
|
| Orbax |
In answer to a creature that could not have evolved: the bombardier beetle. It has a pouch that has a highly caustic acid in it. The pouch has to have a lining to protect it from the acid. the acid has to go out of two ducts in the back. the ducts shoot at sometihng like 1000 bursts a second and they are mobile and controllable. All of those systems have to be in place all at once or it doesnt work. And when you start getting into the bio-chemical level of exactly what a caustic acid is made of, of what the pouch itself is made of, the lining, the hormones to control it all...just too much.
but you asked ;) ill answer Qs on why i believe stuff, but not gonna get into more debates hehe they are kind of pointless, especially over the internet, where anything you dont have an answer to is quickly found on google. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Besides, what is the alternative theory? Is it, by chance, the "Goddidit" Theory? Great, can we test that theory? Can we falsify it? Can we show positive evidence for it (as opposed to negative evidence, i.e. attempting to disprove evolutionary pathways)? If the answer is no to these questions (and it is), then it's not much of a scientific theory. |
to be blunt, you have the theory of evolution I have the theory of God ;) I personally see more correlation in the science around the Bible hehe (sorry guys not gonna draw me in on that statement either, itd be a book). I think its great that scientists are trying to figure out what the hell is going on with our world. But when they start getting into the "why"'s and the "Who"'s they are kinda walking into unknown territory for science. Why on a grand scheme, not why does a ball fall down kinda thing.
The main things I dont like about evolution:
It promotes the religion of secularity
It is typically used to disprove Religion by people
It is taught as a fact that just needs a lil more time to be proven in schools without looking at any other alternative.
Whereas "religious" organizations are banned from public schools the stuff like evolution are given as fact (again) and I think that the theory of evolution needs just as much faith as God. No ones the science behind it, so they sit there and say "well im sure the scientists know what they are doing, and itll be proven one day" sound familiar?
Im all for people believing something theyve studied. But making a life choice based on a "I read it in a science book" kind of attitude is what pisses me off. I hate ignorance more than evolution by far. Educated life choices...i wont even try to change your mind in that area. but when someone shrugs their shoulders and makes a choice...Grr! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
In answer to a creature that could not have evolved: the bombardier beetle. It has a pouch that has a highly caustic acid in it. The pouch has to have a lining to protect it from the acid. the acid has to go out of two ducts in the back. the ducts shoot at sometihng like 1000 bursts a second and they are mobile and controllable. All of those systems have to be in place all at once or it doesnt work. And when you start getting into the bio-chemical level of exactly what a caustic acid is made of, of what the pouch itself is made of, the lining, the hormones to control it all...just too much.
but you asked ;) ill answer Qs on why i believe stuff, but not gonna get into more debates hehe they are kind of pointless, especially over the internet, where anything you dont have an answer to is quickly found on google. |
Apparentely this bombardier beetle is popularly used by creationism in an attempt to debunk evolution ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
But you are correct, google provides the answer to everything :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
In answer to a creature that could not have evolved: the bombardier beetle. It has a pouch that has a highly caustic acid in it. The pouch has to have a lining to protect it from the acid. the acid has to go out of two ducts in the back. the ducts shoot at sometihng like 1000 bursts a second and they are mobile and controllable. All of those systems have to be in place all at once or it doesnt work. And when you start getting into the bio-chemical level of exactly what a caustic acid is made of, of what the pouch itself is made of, the lining, the hormones to control it all...just too much.
|
I'm sorry, Orbax, and to everyone else, I'm about to go offcourse a little bit. Orbax, this is a very common logical fallacy known as Argument from Ignorance, or when referring to Creationists' arguments, it's called Argument by Design (or God of the Gaps.) In short, what the argument says is that something is soooooo unlikely to occur, therefore God intervened and did it. It's a wonderful argument that Intelligent Designers have conjured up over the years for other mechanisms as well: Behe's bacterial flagellum is another classic example. It's just so impossible for something to evolved in such a specialized way, therefore Goddidit.
Putting that argument into the same light as evolution, however, doesn't seem to work very well. I'll refer back to my original questions for evidence: is there a means to prove Godidit? Is there a means to falsify the hypothesis? Is there any POSITIVE evidence to support it (i.e. saying evolution didn't do it, therefore it's creationism)? And finally, one last question, is such evidence enough to overturn existing evidence which supports evolutionary theory much more nicely?
As to explain the exact evolutionary paths of such mechanisms of the bombadier beetle, of course that is not possible at this time. But how difficult is it to infer from evidence and observation? Here's one possible scenario:
| quote: | The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
1.Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
2.Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
3.Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
4.The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
5.A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
6.In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
7.Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.
8.The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]
9.Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
10.Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.
11.Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
12.More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]
13.The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
14.Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
15.The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.
A better description can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
|
The hydrogen peroxide is a by-product of metabolism in insects.quinones are used to harden the cuticle itself. Stink bugs use it to make themselves distasteful to predators.Since these chemicals are excreted by these insects they already taste bad even before the evolution of the bombadier beetle.The bombadier beetle would not have to be accurate initially in evolutionary development to acquire an advantage against predators.
Here's another interesting argument:
| quote: | The beetle apparently does not need this gun as it is related to other beetles without such a defense mechanism..
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2002 Aug;24(2):228-48. Related Articles, Links
Erratum in:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Feb;26(2):334-6..
Phylogenetic relationships of the carabid subfamily Harpalinae (Coleoptera) based on molecular sequence data.
Ober KA.
Department of Entomology, 410 Forbes Building, Interdisciplinary Program in Insect Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. kober@uconnvm.uconn.edu[/email]
The carabid subfamily Harpalinae contains most of the species of carabid beetles. This subfamily, with over 19,000 species, radiated in the Cretaceous to yield a large clade that is diverse in morphological form and ecological habit. While there are several morphological, cytological, and chemical characters that unite most harpalines, the placement of some tribes within the subfamily remains controversial, as does the sister group relationships to this large group. In this study, DNA sequences from the 28S rDNA gene and the wingless nuclear protein-coding gene were collected from 52 carabid genera representing 31 harpaline tribes in addition to more than 21 carabid outgroup taxa to reconstruct the phylogeny of this group. Molecular sequence data from these genes, along with additional data from the 18S rDNA gene, were analyzed with a variety of phylogenetic analysis methods, separately for each gene and in a combined data approach. Results indicated that the subfamily Harpalinae is monophyletic with the enigmatic tribes of Morionini, Peleciini, and Pseudomorphini included within it. Brachinine bombardier beetles are closely related to Harpalinae as they form the sister group to harpalines or, in some analyses, are included within it or with austral psydrines. The austral psydrines are the sister group to Harpalinae+Brachinini clade in most analyses and austral psydrines+Brachinini+Harpalinae clade is strongly supported.
In addition there are more primitive i.e. ancestral versions of the bombadier beetle defense mechanism in some species...
J Exp Biol. 2000 Apr;203 Pt 8:1265-75. Related Articles, Links
Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus).
Eisner T, Aneshansley DJ, Eisner M, Attygalle AB, Alsop DW, Meinwald J.
Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. [email]te14@cornell.edu
The bombardier beetle Metrius contractus discharges its defensive secretion as a froth that clings to its body. When attacked from the rear, it allows the froth to build up over the gland openings near the abdominal tip; when attacked from the front, it conveys the secretion forwards along special elytral tracks. M. contractus has two-chambered defensive glands typical of bombardier beetles, and its secretion, like that of other bombardiers, is quinonoid and hot. Its frothing mechanism, however, is unique for bombardiers and possibly illustrative of the ancestral glandular discharge mechanism of these beetles. M. contractus, thus, could be the least derived of extant bombardiers.
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum10/HTML/000060-3.html
|
Now why exactly is it impossible for this to have evolved? |
|
|
| NooKLeaR |
| quote: | Originally posted by kewlness
The thing with Christianity is that it is not by evidence in which you believe. It is by faith that one believes and then after that you will start to feel the evidence of the presence of God. That's how I came to believe. I am not trying to preach, but rather giving a reason for why I believe what I believe. |
You took the words right out of my mouth. I can't really explain how I know my belief is real....but i can just feel it. |
|
|
| DJScottKeith |
DigiNut - I dont necessarily disagree with you, but until you have checked out the material yourself, I dont think you can really make a statment on what his views are.
MisterOpus1 - I actually found that stuff to be really entertaining =) I'm not saying that Hovind is "IT" or he has all the answers or anything, but I feel he provides some good arguments for creation in a more scientific manner then many other creationists put forth. If you don't believe in God, there is nothing I can do to prove it to you, but sometimes people like to hear 'arguments' or facts for creationism and I think Hovind makes some pretty convincing cases. The college stuff is pretty funny, but I think we honestly all know MANY incredible individuals who never attended any college of any type. I am not defending him particularly, but rather saying that not having a college education from an ivy leage school or any college for that matter doesn't mean you can't be intelligent. Just watch/listen to his material, make the decisions for yourself. I don't agree with many of his points, but it doesn't mean they are not interesting. |
|
|
| Orbax |
yes, i still think in evolutionary terms you are simplifying it. Thats like saying well an eye started as a photosensitive spot and eventually was able to pick up colors :rolleyes:
so no, i still think that doesnt work. If i started wiggling around my kid wouldnt have sweat pits all over his body that he could repel bullies with.
i know youll probably try to attack that logic, but it isnt like im putting a lot of thought into this. Im answering your question, no I dont believe. There is more behind it, but im not going to go into a point by point debate. |
|
|
|
|
