atheists

[megaman125]

from an evolutionary perspective, why is the male peacock as decorated as he is?

Ooo, let me answer this one.

Because millions of years.

 

[TheKringledOne]

Evolution does seem to be a violation of scientific laws of science.

First of all most of your statements on this list have nothing to do with evolution.

1) It is imponderable the DNA can randomly form.

Does anyone actually claim that it did?

2) Which came first, DNA or protein? U need DNA to make protein and DNA is made out of protein.

Most likely protein. I think it is important to note here that you don't need DNA to make proteins and that DNA is not made out of proteins. DNA needs proteins to duplicate itself, but it isn't protein in and of itself.

3) Things tend to go from order to disorder (second law of thermal dynamics).

Yeah, in a closed system. This would apply to the universe as a whole, but that doesn't mean there can't be pockets of complexity. The factors involved in evolution does not lower the entropy of a system, so it doesn't even violate the 2nd law. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

4) Random chance and accident does not favor evolution.

I don't know what you are trying to say here either. Can you rephrase it?

5) The motivation for evolution is made manifest be evolutionists who argue with people of faith and not people of science.

Last time I checked, human understanding of evolution has been extremely useful in almost all fields of biology.

 

[megaman125]

Last time I checked, human understanding of evolution has been extremely useful in almost all fields of biology.

Beliefs about what happened billions of years ago does nothing for the fields of biology other than create a dogmatic religous system that isn't allowed to be questioned.

 

[CoooCaw]

I disagree. We have bred dogs for intelligence, for temperament, for digging skills, for size (big and small), for color (light and dark), for hair (short and long), and many other traits. The result has included traits that never existed in dogs' ancestors,


SIMPLY NOT TRUE - CITE ONE - AND how was it introduced?

the wolves, including a range of sizes and colors and shapes and temperaments totally outside of what wolves produce.

To say we're really "breeding OUT" traits when we breed the most intelligent animals and end up with animals smarter than any of their ancestors, is silly.

And, of course, there's the simple fact in evolution that we know broadly what creatures came from what, and how the observed traits could have arisen and been selected for. Trying to say it's impossible, when in fact it's not only possible but actually happened, is also silly.

...................................

 

[AvalonXQ]

Herding instinct.

 

[CoooCaw]

Herding instinct.

the herding instinct was introduced into dogs?


Ever heard of a wolf pack?

 

[AvalonXQ]

the herding instinct was introduced into dogs?
Ever heard of a wolf pack?

Wolf packs have a herding instinct?

 

[Cycel]

from an evolutionary perspective, why is the male peacock as decorated as he is?

It is not just the male peacock who is more showy than the female of his species, many male birds are more showy. Let me ask you. Why do you think God made them that way. I want to see if the creationist explanation matches the evolutionary one. There is an evolutionary explanation. Is there a creationist one?

Ooo, let me answer this one.
Because millions of years.

Megaman, that makes no sense. It is not even a proper sentence. Did you accidentally post an incomplete response?

 

[megaman125]

Megaman, that makes no sense. It is not even a proper sentence. Did you accidentally post an incomplete response?

Not at all. Millions of years is the catch all vauge answer for any question regarding the details of evolution. Just say millions of years, and leave it at that, don't question it any further, and just accept that it's a result of millions of years.

 

[Cycel]

Would you point me to an example of an hypothesis that is taught as a fact?

evolutionism, acretian model to explain the formation of the solar system

i) Evolution is a theory. It is not an hypothesis. You should know the difference if you are going to discuss evolution.

ii) The acretian model is not one model. There are a number of competing hypotheses regarding the processes involved. All the details are still being worked out.

Students will be taught the competing hypotheses,
only in christian schools

So you are claiming that science does not teach competing hypotheses to students in science classes? Or is it that you are not aware of competing hypotheses in the various fields of science?

even if consensus ie 100% agreement is reach THAT IS NOT THE GROUNDS for establishing fact!

Hypotheses are put forward to account for observable data. Sometimes there is a great deal of data that needs to be understood. Other times the data is sketchy. In either case there will typically arise a number of hypotheses that attempt to explain the observations. Researchers often spend years attempting to prove their pet hypotheses while groups representing competing views work to disprove them. Reputations are built on who turns out to be right and who is wrong. One by one those hypotheses that can’t stand close examination fall and the remaining researchers line up behind the surviving hypotheses. The process can last decades. Research papers must pass peer review. That means they must stand up to the critical examination of every other scientist in the field researching the same problem. A friend of mine, a biologist, told me about his experience. He presented his paper to about 100 scientists in a packed room and was absolutely terrified his hypothesis would be ripped to shreds. As it turned out is data was solid and his hypothesis (which was only a small piece of a larger picture) was well reviewed. Once an hypothesis is arrived at that perfectly matches the available data, and once every one lines up behind that on hypothesis, then we are about as close to truth as we are likely to get.

If you can’t accept that process as truth then I think you must have some other agenda; and we both know what it is.

 

[Cycel]

Megaman, that makes no sense. It is not even a proper sentence. Did you accidentally post an incomplete response?

Not at all. Millions of years is the catch all vauge answer for any question regarding the details of evolution. Just say millions of years, and leave it at that, don't question it any further, and just accept that it's a result of millions of years.

Sounds like an escape hatch for those who know no other way to respond.

Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.

 

[megaman125]

Sounds like an escape hatch for those who know no other way to respond.

Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.

Of course you know the evolutionary response, millions of years gave them showy feathers. As for why did God give them showy feathers instead of something else to accomplish the same function. Well, I don't know why, but I don't need to know. God designed them the way he did because that's the way He did. Me not having any more of an answer doesn't invalidate anything about God or the Bible. All it really proves is that I'm not God, which is a good thing, because I'd rather have God be God.

 

[Cycel]

You're not reading what I said. It doesn't matter if science can explain something or not.

I understand. You will reject out of hand any scientific claim, no matter how good it is, if it is contrary to your biblical understanding. A creationist friend once told me much the same thing. Even if biologists, he said, learned how to make life appear spontaneously in the laboratory in conditions that might once have matched conditions upon the earth, he still wouldn't believe life had begun that way. That's like you, isn't it?

Either way, God is involved in it. It's not "God of the gaps" as you like to claim, it's God is in everything.

The God of the Gaps argument applies every time someone sites the lack of a scientific explanation to explain some aspect of nature and then slips God in as the explanation. That is exactly what you did. You observed that there were no scientific explanations for how early organisms went from an asexual to a sexual mode of reproduction. Then you slipped God in as the explanation. You gave a classic God of the Gaps argument.

 

[Cycel]

Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.

Of course you know the evolutionary response, millions of years gave them showy feathers.

Sorry, no cigar. You didn't just miss the bulls-eye, you completely missed the side of the barn. I didn't ask how long it took, I asked you to give an explanation for why they evolved showy feathers? Care to try again?

 

[Cycel]

Of course you know the evolutionary response, millions of years gave them showy feathers. As for why did God give them showy feathers instead of something else to accomplish the same function. Well, I don't know why...

Think about it. You said, "why did God give them showy feathers instead of something else to accomplish the same function." Think about the function of the feathers. What function are they serving? If God gave them such showy feathers he must have done it for a reason.

God designed them the way he did because that's the way He did.

No Megaman. He had to have done it for a reason. This is God's creation, yes? He didn't just throw things together willy-nilly. He had a reason.

Me not having any more of an answer doesn't invalidate anything about God or the Bible.

Of course it doesn't, but it might invalidate your own understanding of God.

 

[megaman125]

I understand. You will reject out of hand any scientific claim, no matter how good it is, if it is contrary to your biblical understanding. A creationist friend once told me much the same thing. Even if biologists, he said, learned how to make life appear spontaneously in the laboratory in conditions that might once have matched conditions upon the earth, he still wouldn't believe life had begun that way. That's like you, isn't it?

Why would any of that matter to you, huh? After all, you're not here to change our beliefs, right? So why do you care so much about what we do or don't believe? And don't tell me it has to do with being intellectual. Believing in evolution doesn't make you any smarter or dumber than someone who doesn't believe the claims about events of billions of years ago.

The God of the Gaps argument applies every time someone sites the lack of a scientific explanation to explain some aspect of nature and then slips God in as the explanation. That is exactly what you did. You observed that there were no scientific explanations for how early organisms went from an asexual to a sexual mode of reproduction. Then you slipped God in as the explanation. You gave a classic God of the Gaps argument.

I mentioned nothing about God in the whole asexual to sexual discussion. I simply pointed out it was a completely valid reason to not believe evolution, and I made no further conclusions than that. You're the one that's now inserting God into that argument and create your own charade where I supposedly used a "God of the gaps" arguement, which I didn't. You're just pretending that I did to try and cover your flawed evolution.

Sorry, no cigar. You didn't just miss the bulls-eye, you completely missed the side of the barn. I didn't ask how long it took, I asked you to give an explanation for why they evolved showy feathers? Care to try again?

I don't believe they evolved showy feathers. That's your department. Unless you would rather explain why God designed them to have showy feathers? (see what I did there?)

Think about it. You said, "why did God give them showy feathers instead of something else to accomplish the same function." Think about the function of the feathers. What function are they serving? If God gave them such showy feathers he must have done it for a reason.

So what's your point? I don't need to know everything about everything, and the fact that I don't doesn't invalidate God's existence or the Bible in any way.

Of course it doesn't, but it might invalidate your own understanding of God.

Not at all. Me not knowing everything only validates my faith in God, because that is God's department, not mine.

 

[CoooCaw]

Sounds like an escape hatch for those who know no other way to respond.

Megaman, I will pose the same question to you that I asked CoooCaw. Why did God give the peacock showy feathers? I know the evolutionary response, but I wonder what a creationist would say.

see you are a sniper!

now, come out and make a statement

according to YOU....

why does the peacock have showy feathers???

 

[Josh321]

lol when i hear billion years ago i tend to laugh, it's common sense.. if it was " billions of years ago" the world would've been extremely populated, think about it.

 

[Brother_Don]

Josh321, alot of things have happened keeping population down, flood, wars, and other things, i believe that a lot of wars have been started because of over population. i'm not siding with the atheist, its just that none of us really know how old the earth is. been in Gods word a long time, and the age of the earth is still a mystery, but age of the earth doesn't really matter, because God is eternal.

 

[megaman125]

Well, I don't believe God tricked everyone into believing the earth was young until the 1800s.