Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 26, 2004, 11:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
As a clarification, the link I posted earlier is a secular site that is against evolution. They have some links to Biblically-based sites, but they will not answer questions related to the Bible. That is why I thought some of you would find it more compelling than a site such as Answers in Genesis. Here's the link one more time:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The link is quite hilarious.
For example;
"It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

scales had to have mutated into hair
breasts had to have evolved from nothing
hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.
None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory"

None of the those claims have been made in such a way. Evolution doesn't suddenly sprout out new features radically all at once like that. It's not sequential, a lot of what he that refers to requires many thousands of generations to happen. For it to happen in a lab is quite against all odds. Oh please, science against evolution? I've seen better arguments written on a beer mat. Next please.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 26, 2004, 11:29 am

Here's another side splitting quote:
"Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another."

Erm, I don't believe that Evolution theory teaches Necromancy...

wow, the whole page has got more BS than a bovine farm.
Please in the future, read what you're linking up for us to see, unless ofc you wanted all of us to have a good laugh.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 01:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
None of the those claims have been made in such a way. Evolution doesn't suddenly sprout out new features radically all at once like that. It's not sequential, a lot of what he that refers to requires many thousands of generations to happen. For it to happen in a lab is quite against all odds. Oh please, science against evolution? I've seen better arguments written on a beer mat. Next please.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

scales had to have mutated into hair
breasts had to have evolved from nothing
hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to.

Also, I want to point out that just because you give something billions of years to happen does not mean that it will. Certain things are never going to happen mathematically.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 01:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
...read what you're linking up for us to see...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Another poor assumption by an evolutionist. (tee hee). I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself. <smile>

**Pooeypants** · Jan 26, 2004, 03:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Can we reproduce a supernova in a lab?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No, what they claimed is complete BS, basically they're trying to say it went from Reptile -> Mammals.
That's not how it happened and thats why they're wrong.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Also, I want to point out that just because you give something billions of years to happen does not mean that it will. Certain things are never going to happen mathematically.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You're right there, but when you have mathematics to show something is possible, then the long time scale helps even more.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 26, 2004, 03:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

Another poor assumption by an evolutionist. (tee hee). I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself. <smile><hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm sorry if I assumed you weren't the kind of moron that would post such a link. :D

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 03:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I'm sorry if I assumed you weren't the kind of moron that would post such a link. :D
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ouch! (:

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 03:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You're right there, but when you have mathematics to show something is possible, then the long time scale helps even more.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My husband was a math major in college, so maybe I'll have to get his expertise later, but statistically, there comes a point when something is just not going to happen, no matter how much time given.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 26, 2004, 03:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

My husband was a math major in college, so maybe I'll have to get his expertise later, but statistically, there comes a point when something is just not going to happen, no matter how much time given.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm not arguing that, but if you're trying to say evolution is mathematically impossible you'd have to show the workings out. :)

LogicaLunatic · Jan 26, 2004, 05:27 pm

I'm adding this without reading ALL of the posts but if I'm not correct, Sicle Cell Anemia IS in fact a beneficial mutation. People that have that mutation are far less likely to die from Malaria.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 07:29 pm

Yes, we've established that there are occasionally beneficial mutations and that Creation Scientists do not debate that. That does not disprove what we believe.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 07:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I'm not arguing that, but if you're trying to say evolution is mathematically impossible you'd have to show the workings out. :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Okay. Yikes. You guys like to take all my time, don't you? Thanks for being nicer to me, by the way. I'm just a sensitive little artist who got wrapped up in a brain-sucking debate! And being eight-months pregnant doesn't help. Sheesh.

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 07:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

You really have no proof, though. The supposed proof you gave is really just your personal opinion. I am not saying you are wrong (though I believe you are), but that you have not proven anything with your example.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Proof is not the point. The question and answer were obviously staged. If it was not staged it seriously brings into question the standards of AIG in what it prints in the way of serious scientific debate. So you have two choices, dumb beyond belief or down right bogus. To print the article is actually insulting to very basic college level science.

The lack of name, title,etc. makes it suspicious. Ask any agricultural college student who has taken the basic genetics course required for Ag majors. The genetics of color and the relationship between corn and grasses including the effects of cross breeding are covered in detail, because they are important issues in plant breeding and genetics and they are NOT considered NEW INFORMATION. Any one with any background in genetics and plant breeding would have taken this course and six to a dozen others more advanced.

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 08:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

My husband was a math major in college, so maybe I'll have to get his expertise later, but statistically, there comes a point when something is just not going to happen, no matter how much time given.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Be careful about mixing mathematics and statistics and how they apply to evolution and history. Statistics is a special branch of math that the results are heavilly weighted by the assumptions and te strictness of the tests applied to the data. Statistical methods can be selected based on the results desired. That is why there were many jokes going around in all Statistics classes in college. eg, 'If the figures don't prove your desired results contact your local statistician and he will solve your problem.'

Statistics was designed primarilly to evaluate experimental results using the scientific method. It is used to measure the probability of the occurance of different mutations in geneticsStatistics does not ever say something is impossible. It deals with the probability of events or experimental results. The occurrance of the events that lead to speciation may have a low probability of occuring, but given millions of years there is no hurry.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 08:15 pm

Yes, of course I realize that statistics is a special branch of mathematics.

As for the AiG article, proof is exactly the point! That is what I asked for, not opinion or speculation. You are allowed your opinion, but it is simply that. Just because someone posed a question that you and others may find stupid does not mean that it should not be refuted on their site. Anyway, on to other things...

I have a lot of posts to adress single-handedly. <sigh>

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 09:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Yes, of course I realize that statistics is a special branch of mathematics. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Than you realize statistics don't prove anything possible or impossible.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As for the AiG article, proof is exactly the point! That is what I asked for, not opinion or speculation. You are allowed your opinion, but it is simply that. Just because someone posed a question that you and others may find stupid does not mean that it should not be refuted on their site. Anyway, on to other things...

I have a lot of posts to adress single-handedly. <sigh><hr size="1" /></blockquote>

One of the problems of communication in this debate is the definition of theory, proof, fact, law, hypothesis and other words used in science to describe the nature of existence. The misuse of these terms is wide spread and thrown around like pies in a food fight. The worst abused word is proof. Demands of proof are often made with assumptions that are impossible to satisfy. eg. Have they ever produced a supernova in a laboratory? I posted a description of what these scientific terms mean in science and they were ignored.

When you asked for proof concerning the AIG article. What sort of PROOF are you looking for? I presented a clear case for the weak academic basis for the article, NOT SPECULATION, that the article was highly flawed to the point that it couldn't be taken seriously from an academic point of view. The basis for my response is based on sound academics and the nature of what is taught in a basic genetics course. One question I would ask AIG to provide the name and qualifications of the skeptic. It is simple good academics to document both sides of an arguement. With out this the article is reduced to a stage show with a straight man and the fool.

This article had nothing to with the question of NEW INFORMATION in the genetics of evolution. If the Professor was worth his salt he would not have published such a rediculous article.

LogicaLunatic · Jan 26, 2004, 09:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually it doesn't. Gravity has never ever been observed in a lab. The effects of gravity have but never gravity itself. For example...

We observe an apple falling out of a tree

From that we can draw at LEAST two hypotheses...

1) A natural force acted upon the apple causing it to move toward the Earth.

2) A Supernatural force named God plucked the apple from tree and put it on the Earth.

Both are valid hypotheses. The first only became a theory because of other observations that supported it and all of the hypothesis' predictions that held true. Because of these observations we now know that when we see an apple falling to the Earth, the Earth is also falling toward the apple.

Now, lets take another look at an Effect of an invisible force...

There are thousands and thousands of different species on this Earth.

From this we can also draw at LEAST two hypotheses...

1) A natural force/process is responsible for the huge variety of species.

2) A Supernatural force named God is responsible for creating all of the species we see today.

Again, both are valid hypotheses. The reason the first became a theory is because of the mounds of other observations that scientists have made. Plus, the predictions made by the first hypothesis have all been found to be true.

Now, if you want to challenge either the Theory of Gravitation or the Theory of Evolution you must first understand them. Since I don't think you wish to challenge the Theory of Gravitation lets go with Evolution.

Evolution can be seen as a fact and a theory.

Evolution as a fact - Change in allele frequency in a given population over time.
This happens. It is a fact. To deny this is to be considered a retard.

Evolution as a theory - The process of Factual Evolution has given rise to every species on Earth and started from one or a few living common ancestors

PLEASE NOTICE THAT NEITHER OF THESE MENTION HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. TO LUMP ABIOGENESIS IN WITH EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY

The Theory of Evolution requires a physical mechanism. That mechanism is Genetics.

Given genetics as the mechanism, the effect we see (Many different species) couldn't happen very quickly. So here we come to one of the first predictions of the Theory of Evolution, that the Earth has been around for a LONG time and life has been around for a long time too. It just so happens that the Earth and Life have been around for a long time. (If you don't agree, please don't try to DISCREDIT the evidence for an old Earth. Please provide evidence that it is short. Also, please don't use old arguments like Moon Dust or anything you find on Kent Hovind's site http://www.drdino.com because it is complete bullshit.)

Ok, back to challenging the Theory of Evolution. If you want to challenge it please provide an alternative that is supported by the observations. This alternative has to be testable and must make predictions that we can test.

Thanks,

LogicaLunatic

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 09:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
...Perhaps this geneticist is just "down right ignorant and stupid." <wink><hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I missed this one in my original scan of the posts. The obvious ignorance and stupidity of the question (or the skeptic in question), brings into question credibility of printing the article.

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 09:38 pm

[quote=LogicaLunatic,]

Quote:

Quote by: jpapadpapa,

But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point.

LogicaLunatic gave a good response, but I would like to add a few more points. Careful with using entire point , it does not define an arguement well.

Examples:

Have scientists produced a supernova in the lab?

Of course not, but they have actually observed supernovas take place. The have also observed most of the different stages of supernovas to the formation of a black hole. They have recreated many of the individual subatomic events of a supernova in the lab.

Have scientists ever observed, weighed or measured a subatomic particle.

No, but scientists have learned a great deal about them by observing the indirect effects of the subatomic particles.

If science and math had to rely on direct observation we would not have the technology we have today in the world.

Scientists have never directly 'observed species forming' because of the time restraints on direct observation. Scientists have observed the 'effects of specie formation in geologic history.

Scientists have recreated many of the possible steps for the formation of primative life forms in the laboratory and they wil likel be able to recreate the entire process in the future.

You should realize that modern evolution science is less than 200 years old and the knowledge of the actual molecular biology of genetics and evolution is less than fifty years old. We have only just begun.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 10:43 pm

Don't worry. I will not be refering to Dr. Dino for my arguements. Many young-earth Creationists consider him an embarassment, just as I'm sure there are evolutionists that you would also consider poor "ambassadors" for your beliefs.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Than you realize statistics don't prove anything possible or impossible.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There comes a point when, based on probability calculations, a mathmetician will consider the probability of an occurance to be zero. The probability of evolution is zero. I will get into that more later. And I'm sure I will have plenty more arguements that I won't have time for by the time I wake up tomorrow. We really need to find some others to help balance this debate!

Shunyadragon and LogicaLunatic, you do bring up some good points on the idea of observation. Actually, my husband mentioned to me the other day that technically, ideas such as gravity have never been proven scientifically, but they are held to be true because of the other evidence. I simply forgot. I don't believe there is enough evidence for evolution, however.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Scientists have never directly 'observed species forming' because of the time restraints on direct observation. Scientists have observed the 'effects of specie formation in geologic history. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I will try to address this at some point, but I disagree with the later half of that statement. (Big surprise, huh?)

Jan 26, 2004, 11:24 am	#81 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) As a clarification, the link I posted earlier is a secular site that is against evolution. They have some links to Biblically-based sites, but they will not answer questions related to the Bible. That is why I thought some of you would find it more compelling than a site such as Answers in Genesis. Here's the link one more time: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The link is quite hilarious. For example; "It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals scales had to have mutated into hair breasts had to have evolved from nothing hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb etc. None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory" None of the those claims have been made in such a way. Evolution doesn't suddenly sprout out new features radically all at once like that. It's not sequential, a lot of what he that refers to requires many thousands of generations to happen. For it to happen in a lab is quite against all odds. Oh please, science against evolution? I've seen better arguments written on a beer mat. Next please. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 26, 2004, 11:29 am	#82 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	Here's another side splitting quote: "Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another." Erm, I don't believe that Evolution theory teaches Necromancy... wow, the whole page has got more BS than a bovine farm. Please in the future, read what you're linking up for us to see, unless ofc you wanted all of us to have a good laugh. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 26, 2004, 01:34 pm	#83 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by None of the those claims have been made in such a way. Evolution doesn't suddenly sprout out new features radically all at once like that. It's not sequential, a lot of what he that refers to requires many thousands of generations to happen. For it to happen in a lab is quite against all odds. Oh please, science against evolution? I've seen better arguments written on a beer mat. Next please.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But for reptiles to evolve into mammals scales had to have mutated into hair breasts had to have evolved from nothing hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb etc. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to. Also, I want to point out that just because you give something billions of years to happen does not mean that it will. Certain things are never going to happen mathematically. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 01:41 pm	#84 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ...read what you're linking up for us to see...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Another poor assumption by an evolutionist. (tee hee). I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself. <smile> I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 03:18 pm	#85 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Can we reproduce a supernova in a lab? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, what they claimed is complete BS, basically they're trying to say it went from Reptile -> Mammals. That's not how it happened and thats why they're wrong. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also, I want to point out that just because you give something billions of years to happen does not mean that it will. Certain things are never going to happen mathematically.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're right there, but when you have mathematics to show something is possible, then the long time scale helps even more. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 26, 2004, 03:20 pm	#86 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Another poor assumption by an evolutionist. (tee hee). I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself. <smile><hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm sorry if I assumed you weren't the kind of moron that would post such a link. :D War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 26, 2004, 03:28 pm	#87 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I'm sorry if I assumed you weren't the kind of moron that would post such a link. :D <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ouch! (: I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 03:33 pm	#88 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You're right there, but when you have mathematics to show something is possible, then the long time scale helps even more.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My husband was a math major in college, so maybe I'll have to get his expertise later, but statistically, there comes a point when something is just not going to happen, no matter how much time given. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 03:46 pm	#89 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) My husband was a math major in college, so maybe I'll have to get his expertise later, but statistically, there comes a point when something is just not going to happen, no matter how much time given.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not arguing that, but if you're trying to say evolution is mathematically impossible you'd have to show the workings out. :) War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 26, 2004, 05:27 pm	#90 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	I'm adding this without reading ALL of the posts but if I'm not correct, Sicle Cell Anemia IS in fact a beneficial mutation. People that have that mutation are far less likely to die from Malaria. "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 26, 2004, 07:29 pm	#91 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Yes, we've established that there are occasionally beneficial mutations and that Creation Scientists do not debate that. That does not disprove what we believe. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 07:35 pm	#92 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I'm not arguing that, but if you're trying to say evolution is mathematically impossible you'd have to show the workings out. :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay. Yikes. You guys like to take all my time, don't you? Thanks for being nicer to me, by the way. I'm just a sensitive little artist who got wrapped up in a brain-sucking debate! And being eight-months pregnant doesn't help. Sheesh. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 07:44 pm	#93 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) You really have no proof, though. The supposed proof you gave is really just your personal opinion. I am not saying you are wrong (though I believe you are), but that you have not proven anything with your example.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Proof is not the point. The question and answer were obviously staged. If it was not staged it seriously brings into question the standards of AIG in what it prints in the way of serious scientific debate. So you have two choices, dumb beyond belief or down right bogus. To print the article is actually insulting to very basic college level science. The lack of name, title,etc. makes it suspicious. Ask any agricultural college student who has taken the basic genetics course required for Ag majors. The genetics of color and the relationship between corn and grasses including the effects of cross breeding are covered in detail, because they are important issues in plant breeding and genetics and they are NOT considered NEW INFORMATION. Any one with any background in genetics and plant breeding would have taken this course and six to a dozen others more advanced. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 26, 2004, 08:01 pm	#94 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) My husband was a math major in college, so maybe I'll have to get his expertise later, but statistically, there comes a point when something is just not going to happen, no matter how much time given.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Be careful about mixing mathematics and statistics and how they apply to evolution and history. Statistics is a special branch of math that the results are heavilly weighted by the assumptions and te strictness of the tests applied to the data. Statistical methods can be selected based on the results desired. That is why there were many jokes going around in all Statistics classes in college. eg, 'If the figures don't prove your desired results contact your local statistician and he will solve your problem.' Statistics was designed primarilly to evaluate experimental results using the scientific method. It is used to measure the probability of the occurance of different mutations in geneticsStatistics does not ever say something is impossible. It deals with the probability of events or experimental results. The occurrance of the events that lead to speciation may have a low probability of occuring, but given millions of years there is no hurry. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 26, 2004, 08:15 pm	#95 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Yes, of course I realize that statistics is a special branch of mathematics. As for the AiG article, proof is exactly the point! That is what I asked for, not opinion or speculation. You are allowed your opinion, but it is simply that. Just because someone posed a question that you and others may find stupid does not mean that it should not be refuted on their site. Anyway, on to other things... I have a lot of posts to adress single-handedly. <sigh> I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 09:05 pm	#96 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Yes, of course I realize that statistics is a special branch of mathematics. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Than you realize statistics don't prove anything possible or impossible. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As for the AiG article, proof is exactly the point! That is what I asked for, not opinion or speculation. You are allowed your opinion, but it is simply that. Just because someone posed a question that you and others may find stupid does not mean that it should not be refuted on their site. Anyway, on to other things... I have a lot of posts to adress single-handedly. <sigh><hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> One of the problems of communication in this debate is the definition of theory, proof, fact, law, hypothesis and other words used in science to describe the nature of existence. The misuse of these terms is wide spread and thrown around like pies in a food fight. The worst abused word is proof. Demands of proof are often made with assumptions that are impossible to satisfy. eg. Have they ever produced a supernova in a laboratory? I posted a description of what these scientific terms mean in science and they were ignored. When you asked for proof concerning the AIG article. What sort of PROOF are you looking for? I presented a clear case for the weak academic basis for the article, NOT SPECULATION, that the article was highly flawed to the point that it couldn't be taken seriously from an academic point of view. The basis for my response is based on sound academics and the nature of what is taught in a basic genetics course. One question I would ask AIG to provide the name and qualifications of the skeptic. It is simple good academics to document both sides of an arguement. With out this the article is reduced to a stage show with a straight man and the fool. This article had nothing to with the question of NEW INFORMATION in the genetics of evolution. If the Professor was worth his salt he would not have published such a rediculous article. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 26, 2004, 09:11 pm	#97 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually it doesn't. Gravity has never ever been observed in a lab. The effects of gravity have but never gravity itself. For example... We observe an apple falling out of a tree From that we can draw at LEAST two hypotheses... 1) A natural force acted upon the apple causing it to move toward the Earth. 2) A Supernatural force named God plucked the apple from tree and put it on the Earth. Both are valid hypotheses. The first only became a theory because of other observations that supported it and all of the hypothesis' predictions that held true. Because of these observations we now know that when we see an apple falling to the Earth, the Earth is also falling toward the apple. Now, lets take another look at an Effect of an invisible force... There are thousands and thousands of different species on this Earth. From this we can also draw at LEAST two hypotheses... 1) A natural force/process is responsible for the huge variety of species. 2) A Supernatural force named God is responsible for creating all of the species we see today. Again, both are valid hypotheses. The reason the first became a theory is because of the mounds of other observations that scientists have made. Plus, the predictions made by the first hypothesis have all been found to be true. Now, if you want to challenge either the Theory of Gravitation or the Theory of Evolution you must first understand them. Since I don't think you wish to challenge the Theory of Gravitation lets go with Evolution. Evolution can be seen as a fact and a theory. Evolution as a fact - Change in allele frequency in a given population over time. This happens. It is a fact. To deny this is to be considered a retard. Evolution as a theory - The process of Factual Evolution has given rise to every species on Earth and started from one or a few living common ancestors PLEASE NOTICE THAT NEITHER OF THESE MENTION HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. TO LUMP ABIOGENESIS IN WITH EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY The Theory of Evolution requires a physical mechanism. That mechanism is Genetics. Given genetics as the mechanism, the effect we see (Many different species) couldn't happen very quickly. So here we come to one of the first predictions of the Theory of Evolution, that the Earth has been around for a LONG time and life has been around for a long time too. It just so happens that the Earth and Life have been around for a long time. (If you don't agree, please don't try to DISCREDIT the evidence for an old Earth. Please provide evidence that it is short. Also, please don't use old arguments like Moon Dust or anything you find on Kent Hovind's site http://www.drdino.com because it is complete bullshit.) Ok, back to challenging the Theory of Evolution. If you want to challenge it please provide an alternative that is supported by the observations. This alternative has to be testable and must make predictions that we can test. Thanks, LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 26, 2004, 09:14 pm	#98 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) ...Perhaps this geneticist is just "down right ignorant and stupid." <wink><hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I missed this one in my original scan of the posts. The obvious ignorance and stupidity of the question (or the skeptic in question), brings into question credibility of printing the article. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 26, 2004, 10:43 pm	#100 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Don't worry. I will not be refering to Dr. Dino for my arguements. Many young-earth Creationists consider him an embarassment, just as I'm sure there are evolutionists that you would also consider poor "ambassadors" for your beliefs. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Than you realize statistics don't prove anything possible or impossible.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There comes a point when, based on probability calculations, a mathmetician will consider the probability of an occurance to be zero. The probability of evolution is zero. I will get into that more later. And I'm sure I will have plenty more arguements that I won't have time for by the time I wake up tomorrow. We really need to find some others to help balance this debate! Shunyadragon and LogicaLunatic, you do bring up some good points on the idea of observation. Actually, my husband mentioned to me the other day that technically, ideas such as gravity have never been proven scientifically, but they are held to be true because of the other evidence. I simply forgot. I don't believe there is enough evidence for evolution, however. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Scientists have never directly 'observed species forming' because of the time restraints on direct observation. Scientists have observed the 'effects of specie formation in geologic history. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I will try to address this at some point, but I disagree with the later half of that statement. (Big surprise, huh?) I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.