Evolution Debate Discussion (.d) Thread

Jiminy Cricket wrote

The Bible is scientifically accurate. (3) All the alternatives are not. (4) The bible answers the four questions of life. These questions are:
1) Who am I?
2) Why am I here?
3) Where did I come from?
4) Where am I going when I die?
The Bible answers these questions simply. Who am I? I'm someone created in God's image. Why am I here? To please God if he created me. Where did I come from? I'm from the hand of God. Where am I going when I die? I'm going to be with God for eternity.

Wow, talk about redefinition. It has come to pass in JC's mind that dogma=science whereas the scientific method does not. None of the four supposed answers JC provides are in anyway scientifically verifiable and are therefore not scientific at all, contrary to his pitiful claim.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

Now according to evolution we are nothing but a worthless bunch of chemicals. There is no value to our lives. If evolution is true then we're to have fun. If if feels good do it. There is no moral standard if evolution is true. You just have to be more clever. If evolutin is true we all came from an expansion of nothingness 15 to 20 billion years ago. If evolution is true we all go into the ground to be eaten by a worm.

Evolution says nothing about whether we are supposed to have fun or if we should do any and everything that feels good. Furthermore, as has been elaborated on in other threads of late, what we know as morality can be established using human reasoning rather than appeals to the unknown/unknowable. "If" evolution is true, it has nothing to do with anything that happened 15 to 20 billion years ago.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

I like the Bible's answers much more than evolution's answers.

Therein lies the rub.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

I do not believe in evolution because it goes against many of the laws of nature. I can show you countless places where this is true about the evolutionary hypothesis. It does not have good answers for the four questions of life. It is a hypothesis based on racism. Countless lives have been taken in the name of what you believe. Jews, Aboriginies, Tasmanians...etc.

Oh, of course! Those four questions are laws of nature now! Of course, Jiminy seems to have shifted his position some from previously claiming simply to not have liked the answers evolution provided for those four questions to now claiming that it does not have good answers at all. And besides confusing a well cemented theory for a hypothesis (I advised him to bone up on definitions, silly cricket), he has either mistakenly or intellentionally misrepresented the theory as having anything to do with "race." Creationist propaganda no doubt, as I've seen this elsewhere before.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

I want to get this out at the start. neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of Creation can be proven. However, scientific facts seem to point more to the biblical account of everything (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics) than the evolution account. That is what this debate is about.

On the contrary, it should be pointed out to the poor, misguided Cricket that the theory of evolution, following the well established guidelines of scientific inquiry, indeed makes multiple specific predictions allowing it to be tested, falsified and ultimately proven (in so much that science can prove anything). Not only that, but a whole host of those specific predictions have already been borne out serving to cement the theory of evolution further. Unlike the theory of evolution, there is as yet not a single Creationist idea put forth which subjects itself to scientific guidelines or makes such predictions so as to be tested for accuracy. And, of course, Jiminy apparently knows nothing about the laws of thermodynamics as neither of them preclude the theory of evolution in any way, shape or form -- I don't doubt Jiminy has read some from of Creationist propaganda which fails to acknowledge that our planet and its ecosystem exist in an open system rather than a closed one.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that that 15 to 20 billion years there was an expansion of all the matter in the universe. Then about 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down. 3 billion years ago life emerged from a chemical saturated soup. Since this first life form, life has evolved into humans.

What a waste of time; only the last sentence has anything to do with the debate topic.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

If this is what you believe I have some questions about it.
1) Do you believe we came from a rock?
2) Do you believe in spontaneous deneration?
3) Are there any transitional species?
4) How did the first organsim evolve?
5) Who did it marry? or did it asecually reproduce?
6) How do you know that the so-colled transitional forms had any kids much less different kids?
7) Why would you believe that some animal less evolved than what we have today could do something that animals today can't do? That is reproduce something different.
8) How did life originate by chance when it has been proven through math that there is no such thing as chance?
9) How does life evole if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true?
10) Why does one of the first living creatures in the geologic column (trilobite) have the most complex I ever if living organisms were supposed to start out simple?
11) Can you define life? You can have all the amino acids and all the genetic codes in the DNA right and everything in place in a cell but without life it still can't work. It still doesn't have 'the breath of life in it's nostils' I know that cells don't have nostrils bu that's not the point.
12) How can mutations create any improved varieties?
13) When, where why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
14) With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
15) Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease chances of survival?
16) Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Questions 1, 2 and 8, while key to understanding life from an atheistic and naturalistic point of view, has nothing to do with evolution and are therefore irrelevant.

3.) Every species is essentially a transitional species.

4/5.) Asexual reproduction came first and still exists today; sexual reproduction would come later and be preserved as it improved upon an organism's ability to survive. Marriage has never been a necessary component for reproduction. I live in Kentucky -- we know about these things. ;)

6/7.) A misunderstanding of transitional forms; rabbits don't give birth to squirrels and dolphins don't give birth to sharks. Evolution occurs in populations by gradual steps with species differentiating as populations become separate from one another and evolve along different paths, with related populations later finding themselve sufficiently different that they may no longer successfully breed (i.e. different species).

9.) The Second Law of Thermodynamics says only, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." Rephrased we might say "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Of course, life is not a closed system; the sun provides abundant energy to drive things. The evolution of life no more violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics than the forming of a snowflake from a water droplet, which is to say not at all.

10.) The trilobite is not even remotely the first living creature and multiple simpler predecessors are known; the trilobite in no way, shape or form contradicts any aspect of evolutionary theory.

11.) Ummm... without any of those things there is no life. And the cricket might do well to note that those cells are themselves alive, subject to the same decay and death the entire organism to which they belong is.

12.) Mutations can provide a survival advantage over competitors for resources. Would you rather have two fingers by which to attempt to gather necessary resources or would you rather have ten? Would you rather have an eye which functions at 5% of what we today consider 20/20 or would you rather have an eye that functions at 100%? Mutations can and do provide such changes which reveal themselves to be advantageous for the survival of the individual organism as well as the entire species as continued survival will impact the ability and success of passing genes from one generation to the next. Remember: in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

13.) Replication even of nonliving matter occurs all the time, dear cricket. Living organisms need not have "known" how to replicate; it need only possess the capability to do so.

14.) A genetically similar copy of itself, not unlike parents today producing genetically similar copies of themselves today.

15.) What would lead you to believe that descendants somehow decrease chances of survival? Would you seriously content that a species is going to be more successful limiting itself to a single organism with a finite lifespan as opposed to reproducing in order that the genetic code continue to survive by passage from one generation to the next? Reproduction increases survival rather than decreasing it.

16.) It might be said that anything is possible -- even creation from multiple creators ;) -- but that isn't to say it is probable in the least. Common ancestry is thoroughly supported both looking back in time at different species and looking to both the present and future of species.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

Evolution is a very tricky word. It has six different meanings. These are:
1) Cosmic evolution - origin of time, space, and matter.
2) Chemical evolution - origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution - Origin of stars and planets.
4) Organic evolution - origin of life.
5) Macro evolution - origin of major kinds.
6) Micro evolution - variations within kinds.

Only the sixth meaning of evolution matches the definition of science. Science is knowledge gained by observation, study, experimentation...etc. The other five meanings have not been observed.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe, chemicals, planets or life. This has been explained to the Cricket repeatedly, including in the debate proposal thread preceding the debate. Crickets, apparently, do not read very well. Furthermore, there is no fundamental difference in the process of evolution when discussing so-called "Micro-" and "Macro" evolution. The latter is simply the accumulation of smaller changes within separated populations of species which later lead to two or more distinct species of animal with a common ancestor. This is witnessed in real time today, and verified into the past through the study of molecular genetics.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

You may say (as in previous posts) that evolution does not involve origins. But in order for evolution to be true macro evolution has to take place. I don't mind if you believe in evolution (I would love for you to become a Christian) but I don't think it should be taught in schools. It is a hypothesis based on fantasies proven years ago. Some over a hundred years.

It does not involve origins; evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. It has nothing to do with origins.

You have yet, dear Cricket, to show even a rudimentary understanding of science and the scientific method, and you certainly haven't refuted the facts or theory of evolution scientifically. As such, you are in no position at all to label it a hypothesis (again, bone up on the definitions of these words before you toss them about) or as mere fantasy. Your only apparent recourse to suggest that it not be taught in schools is apparently to argue that scientific facts be generally excluded from the classroom, which would be entirely counterintuitive to the purpose of the classroom in the first place.

All in all, a laughable disappointment of an argument. But then again, I don't suppose we should expect much from a Cricket.


*I realize of course this is not the debate thread itself, but felt compelled to give my own response in case Jiminy should ever choose to read through any of this.

[a different tim]

He won't. We've done it before, with almost identical wording on his part, and he didn't read it then even on the thread he posted on.

Ocmpoma calls it "groundhog day syndrome" but all I know is it really pisses me off.

[psyadam]

Jiminy Cricket wrote

I apologize, Tenspace, it completely slipped my mind that the debate was scheduled for yesterday.

Here is what I believe; it is very simple. i believe the bible is literally true through and through. I believe that around six thousand years ago (it is not certain) God made everything. Around forty-four hundred years ago God judged the world with a worldwide flood. Two thousand years ago God came to earth in the form of man to save this world from sin and hell. That offer is still available by the way.

to clarify, Jiminy, what do you mean by "everything"? I can understand theists who would believe that god put the "spirit" into man and called him Adam in 4000BC but saying that you think he created everything just sounds very ignorant.

Also, btw, how old are you?

Creationist Rules for Arguing

1) Whenever possible, change the subject to keep your opponent off balance.

2) You can't lose if you don't shut up.

3) You can't be insulted if you're too dumb to understand the insult.

4) If you can't rebut anything, just say whatever pops into your head.

Remember: Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo. (The drop hollows the stone not by force, but by constant dripping.)

OK, I admit I have used those strategies myself . . .

*edit: missing word

Hello all-

First post here. I enjoy following the evolution vs. creationism debate, but that enjoyment can only go so far because of the Groundhog Day Syndrome. I certainly appreciate efforts of people like ALJ to set the record straight, but of course logic only goes so far with the creationists. JC made it pretty clear that he doesn't understand the subject he's arguing, and he doesn't understand how logic applies to the subject.

JC managed to put up just about every single debunked creationist canard out there. The one argument that really grinds my gears is point 9, the one that says evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. If you use this line as an anti-evolution argument, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about and aren't worth listening to.

Perhaps we can benefit from JC's ignorance. I propose that anyone who wants to advance creationist/design arguments first state how evolution does not violate the second law of thermodyamics. If the creationist/design poster fails this task, any future posts on the topic could be safely ignored.

I'm looking forward to this debate! I think Ji iny Cricket's behaviou has been irreproachable. He has firmly and fairly stated what he believes without insults and with only a touch of sarcasm. I think he should be commended for his gentlemanly approach to the debate.

Now that Jiminy has stated his opening case, one can hope that when Tenspace demolishes it (which he will) Jiminy Cricket will maintain his polite and reasonable attitude and gracefully admit his mistakes.

[a different tim]

interested atheist wrote

I think Jiminy Cricket's behaviour has been irreproachable.

Not really.
1) He's a plagiarist. He cuts and pastes without attribution.
2) We demolished these arguments before, and he didn't admit his mistakes then, so
3) By raising them again he is being dishonest. Polite, but dishonest.

PS Do I need to turn my sarcasm detector on?

Like psyadam, I would also be curious as to Jiminy's age, as well as his or her level of education. Given the extent of the plagiarism previously witnessed and the apparent failure to even understand the scientific method or scientific definitions (such as hypothesis, theory and law) -- to say nothing of the failure to understand what the theory of evolution entails -- I'm not sure Jiminy is sufficiently educated to enter into any debate of a scientific nature.

[inkadu]

Why the hang up about evidence and proof? What he clearly wants to talk about is how being a Christian gives meaning to his life. Then we could talk about what gives meaning to our lives. And then everyone's happy.

But instead we have to sandblast our dicks with the second law of thermodynamics.

ei!
why arent they discussing at their forum?i mean why are they not debating?

[psyadam]

I would like to briefly bring up one point in Tens last responce to Jimminy's initial argument:

- Ten: How would you respond to the IDsts claim that ID is not creationism; i.e. that ID rests on its hypothesis that some processes are "irreductibly complex" and that this only implies that there is a 'higher power' and not necessarily God?

[Tenspace]

psyadam wrote

I would like to briefly bring up one point in Tens last responce to Jimminy's initial argument:

- Ten: How would you respond to the IDsts claim that ID is not creationism; i.e. that ID rests on its hypothesis that some processes are "irreductibly complex" and that this only implies that there is a 'higher power' and not necessarily God?

That's the reason I opened with the Dover decision. A federal judge says their intentions are religiously motivated.

Is anyone aware of a serious ID movement that's not a cloak for creationism? I'd like to hear about them.

[psyadam]

What about the claim about things being "irreductibly complex"? I have always thought it to be a rather funny term. I don't understand differential calculus. Does that mean it is "irreductibly complex"? I feel like the term is very much like a school child who doesn't want to learn something claiming it is "irreductibly complex" as so to not have to factor anymore quadratics.

What Behe did in coining IC structures was claim that certain things such as bacterial flagella could not function if only one part was not there. He utilized a mousetrap and an analogy. Since then other biochemists and other biologist et cetera have shown how Behe's ideas are flawed. Yet he keeps harping on it and always brings up the same old refuted "evidences" of IC.

Here's one resource that addresses Behe's concepts:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Also David Ussery (professor of microbial genomics) takes on Behe's claims:

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

Ken Miller's address of the issue:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...1/article.html

A Journal article in the Journal of Chemical Education, 81: 1051-1052. by Edward Behrman and George Marzluf shows how evolution better accounts for certain biochemical pathways rather than ID.

Another interesting item is that it was shown that the flagship text Of Pandas and People had originally used the word creationism but replaced it with intelligent design beginning in the 1987 edition, if I remember correctly. Not to mention the "wedge strategy" documents showing the agenda which powers the ID movement, and it isn't scientific progress or accumulation of knowledge. It's only a move to reintroduce Judeo-Christian ideology back into schools to be taught and politics to be legislated - both places where it doesn't belong.

Just like to point out Mr JC has made an error here. He's copied and paste an argument from "Dr" Dino. I have heard the same argument from a Youth pastor, also.

Imagine, if you will, the average intelligence of a fundamentalist. Then, by definition, fully half must be more stupid than that.

Of course, that's using median rather than mean.

And just as filler, since this must have been debated a million times:

Jiminy Cricket wrote

I believe this for several reasons. (1) I grew up with it. (2) The Bible is scientifically accurate. (3) All the alternatives are not. (4) The bible answers the four questions of life. These questions are:
1) Who am I?
2) Why am I here?
3) Where did I come from?
4) Where am I going when I die?
The Bible answers these questions simply. Who am I? I'm someone created in God's image. Why am I here? To please God if he created me. Where did I come from? I'm from the hand of God. Where am I going when I die? I'm going to be with God for eternity.
Now according to evolution we are nothing but a worthless bunch of chemicals. There is no value to our lives. If evolution is true then we're to have fun. If if feels good do it. There is no moral standard if evolution is true. You just have to be more clever. If evolutin is true we all came from an expansion of nothingness 15 to 20 billion years ago. If evolution is true we all go into the ground to be eaten by a worm.
I like the Bible's answers much more than evolution's answers.

I also like the idea that there is a hundred million dollars waiting for me in a Bank of Zurich somewhere. It's quite nice. But, despite my liking it and it being beneficial to me if it were true, does not actually make it true. You can't take something for granted just because it would be "nice"

Jiminy Cricket wrote

I do not believe in evolution because it goes against many of the laws of nature. I can show you countless places where this is true about the evolutionary hypothesis. It does not have good answers for the four questions of life. It is a hypothesis based on racism. Countless lives have been taken in the name of what you believe. Jews, Aboriginies, Tasmanians...etc.

The Bible supports racism. Racism existed before Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. Ergo, I postulate that racism is a religious consequence, not a scientific one.
Also, evolution would also have you know that we are "different" and suited to our environments, rather than anyone being inherently superior.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

I want to get this out at the start. neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of Creation can be proven. However, scientific facts seem to point more to the biblical account of everything (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics) than the evolution account. That is what this debate is about.

Because there is no scientific law against matter being created? But you quote it. Right here. First law of thermodynamics:
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Evolution does not say energy was created. Biblical account does.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that that 15 to 20 billion years there was an expansion of all the matter in the universe. Then about 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down. 3 billion years ago life emerged from a chemical saturated soup. Since this first life form, life has evolved into humans.

Most of that is irrelevant. Most of that was not about evolution. If you are going to debate the Big Bang theory, say so. Evolution is, I feel I have said this a million times, but it's probably only five, a process that results in heritable changes in a population of organisms over several generations.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

Snipped senseless creationist babble, and made up words like deneration
Evolution is a very tricky word. It has six different meanings. These are:
1) Cosmic evolution - origin of time, space, and matter.
2) Chemical evolution - origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution - Origin of stars and planets.
4) Organic evolution - origin of life.
5) Macro evolution - origin of major kinds.
6) Micro evolution - variations within kinds.

But only two of those are actually evolution (the last two, if anyone was wondering), and even then they are one and the same. So, quite clearly, you are wrong. Four of those meanings do not conform to the definition of evolution.

Jiminy Cricket wrote

Only the sixth meaning of evolution matches the definition of science. Science is knowledge gained by observation, study, experimentation...etc. The other five meanings have not been observed.
You may say (as in previous posts) that evolution does not involve origins. But in order for evolution to be true macro evolution has to take place. I don't mind if you believe in evolution (I would love for you to become a Christian) but I don't think it should be taught in schools. It is a hypothesis based on fantasies proven years ago. Some over a hundred years.

Well, only one other is evolution. And that has been observed (speciation, i.e. the creation of new species through multiple generations and selection criterion). So that pretty much demolishes your case, does it not?

BTW, I find this amusing. I'll put it up again, if no one could be bothered reading it:

Jiminy Cricket wrote

It is a hypothesis based on fantasies proven years ago.

He's admitted it. Everyone cheer!