tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post1429268123818890220..comments2023-10-24T03:48:03.925-07:00Comments on Pilgrimage: My thoughts on evolution 2Daniel (Da Pilgrim)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-45511523620712322742009-05-21T04:01:31.077-07:002009-05-21T04:01:31.077-07:00Hey there,
"And what is our designed purpose? At ...Hey there,<br /><br />"And what is our designed purpose? At the minute, our species just seems to be messing up the planet."<br /><br />I agree, we should do something about it!<br /><br />If you go down your road of thinking too far you will end up with...<br />Fire burns our fingers!?! How badly designed we are! We should be able to withstand fire? God made a mistake.<br /><br />It's funny this, I say we are designed...you and others pick holes, You say evolution is everything's origins...I and others pick holes.<br />!!??!!?? <br /><br />NE way thanks for your comment. :)<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-8715348467324244592009-05-21T03:55:15.171-07:002009-05-21T03:55:15.171-07:00What do you think of Ray's latest post?:
"The mis...What do you think of Ray's latest post?:<br /><br />"The missing link finally found<br /><br />Creationists who say that there is no proof of Darwinian evolution have been called liars for years:<br /><br />"Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false . . . but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (Columbia University Press, 2007)."<br /><br />So the claim that there are no species-to-species transition forms in the fossil record "is false." Instead evolutionists say that fossil record "is full of them." But look at this May 20th 2009 report about how they had finally found the missing link:<br /><br />"Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution. This 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' is described as the 'eighth wonder of the world.' The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years -- but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York. The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' -- dubbed Ida -- is described by experts as the 'eighth wonder of the world.' They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be 'somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth.' Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle. Sir David Attenborough said Darwin 'would have been thrilled' to have seen the fossil -- and says it tells us who we are and where we came from. 'This is the one that connects us directly with them' . . . Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link . . . The link they would have said up to now is missing -- well it's no longer missing'."<br /><br />For years we have been told by believers that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact. But this article correctly says that prior to this discovery they had no proof. With this discovery they now believe that "the link they would have said up to now is missing -- well it's no longer missing." All this proves is that some scientists are willing to lie to prove their pet theories.<br /><br />Is this the missing link? Is Ida proof of Darwinism? Not according to CBS news. They said, "So while we don’t know exactly what Ida means to human origins, she’s proof we are endlessly fascinated by where we came from." According to The wall Street Journal, "The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found."<br /><br />The missing link is still missing. So much for the "eighth wonder of the world" and the "asteroid falling down on the world." Believers in the theory of evolution still have to keep blindly believing without proof. Maybe one day...<br /><br />Notes:<br />http://www.livescience.com/animals/090211-transitional-fossils.html<br />http://news.sky.com/<br />May 19th, 2009<br />http://www.nypost.com/seven/05192009/news/worldnews/47Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-7328144927309130342009-05-19T09:21:00.000-07:002009-05-19T09:21:00.000-07:00"But we have to admit that we do look well designe...<I>"But we have to admit that we do look well designed"</I>Do we?<br /><br />Wisdom teeth?<br />Our windpipe and gullet wrapping around each other making it a choking hazard every time we eat/drink?<br />Eyes that inevitably need glasses?<br /><br />And what is our designed purpose? At the minute, our species just seems to be messing up the planet.<br /><br />Now you could point to the 'Fall' for all this, of course, but then which is it 'well-designed' or 'fallen creation'?<br /><br />How could you objectively tell the difference?<br />How do you define 'design'?<br /><br /><br />So many questions, so little time!<br /><br />Regards,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-77237088506539628692009-05-12T23:40:00.000-07:002009-05-12T23:40:00.000-07:00Hey ya Matt!
Yeah I am struggling for time at the...Hey ya Matt!<br /><br />Yeah I am struggling for time at the moment to do indepth research but I will get around to it sometime...stay tuned :)<br /><br />"Just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean that that is the best or only way they could have been."<br /><br />True. I agree with you on many points in regard to that. But we have to admit that we do look well designed and well placed.<br />Surely you can understand why most of the world believe in God or some god, there is good reason.<br /><br />cheers,<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-9057251689028815712009-05-11T09:09:00.000-07:002009-05-11T09:09:00.000-07:00So, you don't mind the whole 'Old Earth / species ...So, you don't mind the whole 'Old Earth / species evolving into other species' thing, as long as God is involved?<br /><br />Fair enough. Nobody is saying that God <I>isn't</I> involved. There are many working biologists who believe that He is. It doesn't change the fact that the world is very old and evolution happens.<br /><br />Keep us posted on your old-earth investigations.<br /><br /><br />Here's a thought; if our ears <I>were</I> on 'backwards' - how would you know? If everyone's ears pointed backwards, that would be normal. 'Backwards' would be the way they are now and that would seem odd. <br /><br />Just because things are a certain way, doesn't mean that that is the best or only way they <I>could</I> have been.<br /><br />Regards,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-47650460407553830182009-05-08T15:36:00.001-07:002009-05-08T15:36:00.001-07:00I may put a post soon on the views of old-earth cr...I may put a post soon on the views of old-earth creationists...hmmmm.Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-12455869595304631922009-05-08T15:36:00.000-07:002009-05-08T15:36:00.000-07:00Hey Matt,
Thanks for the recommendation of "Reaso...Hey Matt,<br /><br />Thanks for the recommendation of "Reasons to believe".<br />Someone suggested that to me the other day :)<br /><br />http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/<br />greg-moore-does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-<br />genesis-1<br /><br />I skim read this and I found it rather interesting. Quite plausible.<br /><br />I mean by "accident" as in: If evolution happended (without God) it was not pre-planned or guided to happen. I cannot accept that view as valid. It doesn't make sense... My previous posts explore that. <br /><br />However I am more and more interested in the old-earth creationists. They sound interesting and is the only way I could understand evolution...that God guided/caused it.<br /><br />I am hoping to get a cool testimony from a guy about God working in his life amazingly...he's really busy but he said he will write it with his own hand. I want it not to be 10th hand evidence of miracles...you know what I mean. He is a sound man (not crazy). <br />I'm not sure when I can get it on here though.<br /><br />I'm obsessed with backward ears (although your right it may be random LOL) because it is a valid musing as to God's creative genious.<br /><br />God Bless...I mean it...I am praying for you Matt!<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-24748982392733351252009-05-08T07:41:00.000-07:002009-05-08T07:41:00.000-07:00Dan,
I call it how I see it.
At the Dover Trial,...Dan,<br /><br />I call it how I see it.<br /><br />At the Dover Trial, the Intelligent Design (ID) guys kept on saying how ID was science and not Creationism.<br /><br />One of the pieces of evidence against them was a textbook called 'Of Pandas and People' which was the leading ID textbook that they wanted taught in schools.<br /><br />The claim by the evolutionists was that this was a creationist book 'dressed up' to look like science. The ID guys denied it. However, upon inspection of an early draft of the book they found this;<br /><br />"cdesign proponentists"<br /><br />They had gone through the book and replaced 'creationist' with 'design proponents', only they didn't do it right in this case and you can plainly see the 'transitional form' of the creationist book turning into an ID book - these were the only words that were changed.<br /><br />They had lied under oath that this book wasn't creationism disguised as science and they were caught.<br /><br />I don't know what else you call that. Where I'm from, it's called lying.<br /><br />I would suggest 'Reasons to Believe' it's a ministry based around the idea that God guided the universe with the specific goal of mankind arising which, if you think about it, is even more impressive than the young earth idea. It means that God set things in motion nearly 14 billion years ago with such precision that everything panned out exactly as He intended - I find that to be quite astonishing.<br /><br /><br />Dan, I don't know who told you that evolution is an 'accident'. There's no evidence to suggest that it is (or isn't), God could very well be guiding the whole process, but it definitely happened.<br />And I don't know why you're obsessed with backward ears either, it seams a bit random.<br /><br />I enjoy our conversations Dan, simple as that.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />MattExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-79736095527190116332009-05-08T00:51:00.000-07:002009-05-08T00:51:00.000-07:00Hey Matt,
Thank you for your comment!
"you're on ...Hey Matt,<br />Thank you for your comment!<br /><br />"you're on the side with the liars and the cheats and the charlatans."<br /><br />1stly please do not call them all liars, keep it respectable. I can understand their possible misunderstandings.<br /><br />You are way out of my league in evolutionary/scientific knowledge. I have not read those books that you have read.<br />If you are right I may look into what some old earth christians actually think about evolution. I know David Pawson accepts the possibility and he sat under top evolutionist teachers in his day although they stressed it was a theory.<br /><br />However I CAN NOT ACCEPT EVOLUTION as being an accident. My intellect cannot see it happening un-guided. A backwards ear, like other things, is not a survival characteristic.<br /><br />Dude, why are you here talking with me for the past month when it is obvious I am not a knowledgeable evo/science guru? There are no people to impress with your evolutionary arguments...go to Ray's site for that.<br />I am not telling you to buzz off. I have enjoyed our conversations<br /><br />Cya,<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-80251655125497939502009-05-07T13:19:00.000-07:002009-05-07T13:19:00.000-07:00Dan,
A couple of things...
I've spent a long tim...Dan,<br /><br />A couple of things...<br /><br />I've spent a long time reading and researching creation and evolution. I've watched many of the lectures given by the prominent Creationists as well as reading a number of books by Behe et. al. I've also read a lot of scientific journals and know many people in the sciences who are able to talk me through some of the more difficult subjects and point me in the direction of further reading.<br /><br />You response to my comment about Irreducible Complexity (IC) doesn't make any sense. Creationists claim that IC disproves evolution, but there are no IC organisms; so it's a pointless assertion.<br /><br /><I>"Why would evolution edit out the backward ears etc if its not harmful."</I>Dan, you don't think that a backwards ear would be harmful to an organism? It is very much a survival issue - especially back in the early days of our evolution. If you can't hear danger coming then you don't survive.<br /><br />The very point about Natural Selection is that it selects for the most fit mutations. The least fit are weeded out so you will always be left with an organism that is well-adapted to its environment.<br /><br /><br /><I>"The guy is a Dr. and used to be an evolutionist"</I>He was a dentist who went to Theology school.<br /> <br />His whole argument is based upon ignorance. He can't understand how animals could end up the way they are - therefore God must have done it. This is the very opposite of science. If you don't know how something works; find out! 'God' is a lazy answer.<br /><br /><br />You last comment is kind of confusing.<br /><br />It is my belief that the majority of evolution-deniers are religiously motivated to deny evolution.<br /><br />I do not believe that they 'looked at the evidence', found it wanting and then determined that God must have been responsible (or ID, if you wish).<br /><br />You only have to look at the 'Wedge Document' that was leaked from the Discovery Institute to see their agenda. It basically says that they'll try and crowbar Creationism into schools under the guise of Intelligent Design.<br /><br />At the Dover Trial, Michael Behe (the leading proponent of Intelligent Design) admitted that Intelligent Design was as scientific as alchemy, astrology, tarot cards and flat-earth theory. I.e not very scientific at all!<br /><br /><br />Dan, let me spell out what I think.<br /><br />There are Christians who believe that the entirety of the Bible <I>has</I> to be true, otherwise none of it is true. Starting from that premise, anything that contradicts their interpretation of scripture <I>must</I> be wrong by definition.<br /><br />They don't care that there is no good science to back up their position. They don't care that they have to lie and distort and misrepresent to try and tear down evolution. As far as they are concerned, they are fighting the good fight and any means are acceptable.<br /><br />I'm sorry Dan, but when it comes down to evolution vs. Creation; you're on the side with the liars and the cheats and the charlatans.<br /><br />However,<br />NONE OF THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NO GOD!<br /><br />I <I>have</I> to stress this because I don't want you to get the wrong idea. There are literally thousands of working scientists who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior and still acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. They are professionals and, as Kenneth Miller (Biologist & Christian) put it, 'evolution is a beautiful thing; I'm proud to worship the God who is responsible for it.'<br /><br />That's my 2 cents, anyway.<br /><br />Regards,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-8939766312520578612009-05-06T04:55:00.000-07:002009-05-06T04:55:00.000-07:00I looked up the link:
"Incredible Creatures that ...I looked up the link:<br /><br />"Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution"<br /><br />The guy is a Dr. and used to be an evolutionist but then studied animals more and realised that evolution was not probable.<br />Click on the reference link No.3<br /><br />Oh, you said earlier that the anti-evolutionists were religious (intending to be evidence that they are biased...I think that was your motive). I thought about it more...if you don't believe in evolution then Intelligent design is the only alternative... God. That is why anti-evolutionists are all religious. If you deny evolution you admit there is a God?<br />Correct?<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-77071724779570539882009-05-06T04:19:00.000-07:002009-05-06T04:19:00.000-07:00Hey Matt,
Wow you seem to know a lot for not bein...Hey Matt,<br /><br />Wow you seem to know a lot for not being a scientist...are you just parroting people like Richard Dawkins (like me :)) or have you done the research against all these arguments?<br /><br />You have to admit although you have answers such as "There is not one single organism that has been found to be irreducibly complex." does not deny the difficulty of evolution getting around those barriors...<br /><br />Here is a quote from you on another thread.<br /><br />"Ears are the way they are because that is the most effective way for them to be. Questions like this highlight a severe lack of understanding of how evolution works."<br /><br />This is my point, if evolution is NOT guided or pre thought out...then why do we have so many useful and well designed objects in and around our body that are not survival issues. Why would evolution edit out the backward ears etc if its not harmful.<br />Our ears are around the right way...Our ears have channels to catch the sound... our nose is the right way up (logicaly...designed). <br /><br />"I think you'll agree that numbers 2, 6, 7 & 8 are not evidence against evolution, but against other aspects of scientific understanding."<br /><br />If someone wants to tell me that evolution guided itself and that God had no part to play in it then those other aspects is what evolution is gounded on eg fine tuning of the earth...amazing, well designed to support life.<br />However you are right they do not specificly relate to evolution of the type we are talking about.<br /><br />Catchya,<br /><br />DanDaniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-87706993953777956552009-05-05T14:46:00.000-07:002009-05-05T14:46:00.000-07:00Here we go!
1. Information
This is kind of inte...Here we go!<br /><br />1. Information<br /><br /><br />This is kind of interesting, in fact 'Information Theory' is a new and exciting branch of genetics that is revealing some incredible things about life.<br /><br /><br /><I>"Modifying the DNA via mutation can <B>never</B> produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution,"</I>For starters, DNA modification <I>has</I> been shown to produce new genetic information (I think I've mentioned nylonase before) and secondly, there is no 'upward drive' to evolution; there is only adaptation and survival. <br /><br />Organisms re-use and re-shuffle protein groups during reproduction and the recombined DNA contains errors, mutations that can have negative, neutral or beneficial outcomes in the organism as it develops. The point is, to achieve 'new information' you only have to copy and shuffle existing DNA and voila!<br /><br />Still, this is an ongoing field of study and who knows what may come of it. <br /><br /><br />3. Design of Living Things<br /><br /><I>"The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle!"</I>I find it ironic that the author uses this beetle as his example immediately after referencing Dawkins. One of Prof. Dawkins' first TV appearances was to debunk the myth that the Bombardier Beetle should explode because of the volatile chemicals found within it.<br /><br />Natural Selection works on the basis that those most fit to survive, survive. It follows that those that are left are best suited for their environment. Figuring out how they came to be this way is what evolutionary biologists study. You really should read The Blind Watchmaker, it's a fantastic explanation of this very issue.<br /><br /><br />4. Irreducible Complexity<br /><br />There is not one single organism that has been found to be irreducibly complex.<br /><br /><I>“nothing works until everything works.”</I> <br /><br />The problem with this is that it assumes that only the finished product matters. Things can have other functions before they're used in the way we understand them. Things can also lose 'scaffolding' once they are 'complete'. <br /><br />Think of a bridge over a river, there's no way you can possibly build it using only the material found in the final bridge. However, the bridge (with scaffolding) can be used as a rudimentary coffer dam during construction as well, so it has a function before it's a finished bridge.<br /><br />Afterwards you remove the scaffolding because it is no longer serving a function. Many geneticists are currently working on understanding this 'scaffolding' and the role it plays in the evolution of novel traits.<br /><br /><br />5. Second Law of Thermodynamics<br /><br />The second law applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system, ergo the second law does not apply. This has been covered a thousand times over.<br /><br /><br /><br />9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record<br /><br /><I>"Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression."</I>If you can't read that and see how wrong it is, then there's no hope for you. <br /><br /><I>"Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”."</I>Nobody thinks birds evolved from reptiles. They evolved from a branch of avian dinosaurs. We have a number of Archeopteryx fossils and many similar species that exhibit dinosaur and bird traits. What even is a 'half scale/half wing'?<br /><br />These people have <I>no idea</I> what they're talking about.<br /><br /><br /><br />10. Human Consciousness<br /><br />This is a bald assertion that human consciousness is some sort of magical entity that is separate from the mind - how come brain damage can lead to altered personalities then?<br /><br />How come we know which neurons determine anger, lust, happiness, even religious fervor? The mind is the function of the brain, that is what it does. <br /><br />All of the traits referenced in that section are found in other animals too.<br /><br /><br />11. Human Language<br /><br /><I>"Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language."</I>No, but anthropologists do. Speech is a product of our evolved brain and there are very good survival benefits for those who can best articulate their thoughts and ideas.<br /><br />Many other animals have advanced forms of communication that we cannot even begin to understand; does that make <I>them</I> special? I think so.<br /><br /><br /><br />12. Sexual Reproduction<br /><br />This comment shows a very poor understanding of how sexual reproduction emerged and what benefits it offers.<br /><br />The fact that he thinks animals 'abandoned' asexual reproduction, or that the transition was made after 'animals' were in existence speaks volumes.<br /><br /><br /><br />Ok, that was a quick pass through as I tried to keep it brief. Perhaps you could pick out a couple of points that you'd like to talk more about and we can go from there?<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />MattExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5300869586016541037.post-11576905645109594962009-05-05T08:30:00.000-07:002009-05-05T08:30:00.000-07:00Thanks Dan,
This is what I was getting at with re...Thanks Dan,<br /><br />This is what I was getting at with regard to providing evidence! It is yet to be seen if this evidence is compelling or not; down the rabbit-hole we go!<br /><br />1. Information - ok<br />2. Formation of Life - not evolution (abiogenesis)<br />3. Design of Living Things - ok<br />4. Irreducible Complexity - ok<br />5. Second Law of Thermodynamics - ok<br />6. Existence of the Universe - not evolution (cosmology)<br />7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life - not evolution (cosmology)<br />8. Fine-tuning of Physics - not evolution (er, physics!)<br />9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record - ok<br />10. Human Consciousness - ok<br />11. Human Language - ok<br />12. Sexual Reproduction - ok<br /><br />I think you'll agree that numbers 2, 6, 7 & 8 are not evidence against evolution, but against other aspects of scientific understanding. <br /><br />So, I'll start going through your evidences one by one and we'll see where we get to, ok?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />MattExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.com