Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Whether he's an idiot or not doesn't matter: He was wrong. Doesn't necessarily stupid, just mistaken.

It is, however, an extreme breach of knowledge to totally disregard anything not directly observed.

He was saying that you can't prove evolution without observing it

Is that wrong?

Obviously we can directly observe evolution, as we've been telling you (the creation every year's flu shot is an exercise in evolution), but indirect observation is a completely valid form of observation. The failure to recognize this is the original source of the "micro/macroevolution" conjecture.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

When I say evolution I don't mean a single celled thing slightly changing
Heck if I meant that I wouldn't be argueing right now

I mean somethig like a fish evolving to have legs and oxygen breathing lungs

Also the flu is a virus and not a living thing technicaly 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

When I say evolution I don't mean a single celled thing slightly changing

I mean somethig like a fish evolving to have legs and oxygen breathing lungs

You are talking about the exact same process in both of these sentences. That is the issue here. The only difference is time.

Also the flu is a virus and not a living thing technicaly

That's not what I mean. Firstly, you don't have to be a living thing to undergo evolution. Virii have DNA/RNA, so they can evolve. Any psudolife that carries data and replicates (even if it doesn't truly reproduce) is subject to evolutionary biology. Influenza is a rapidly mutating virus, so it requires a new vaccine every year. Previous vaccines will not allow your immune system to recognize the protein shell, because it has changed over the course of the year into a new form. Evolution.

[Uristides]

He was saying that you can't prove evolution without observing it

Is that wrong?

He was saying you can't attest a process is happening without observing both its beginning and its end. That's an unreasonable demand, unless, as you stated, we become able to build time machines.

[Leafsnail]

You get your "new information" from random mutations.  Over billions of years those add up.

I'd also point out that the whole micro-evolution argument is completely and utterly defeated once you start to consider the fossil record.  There are plenty of fossils that clearly show either common ancestors or transitions between ancient and more modern creatures in the appropriate time spans.  For instance, is it just a coincidence that there were bird-like dinosaurs before there were what we would recognize as birds today?  To make the argument that "macroevolution doesn't exist" you'd need to argue that God is constantly creating species out of nowhere in a pattern that happens to very strongly mimic what you'd expect under evolution, which is just silly.

I mean somethig like a fish evolving to have legs and oxygen breathing lungs

How do you explain all the fish that have evolved legs, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish
And indeed the ones with lungs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

[cerapa]

I mean somethig like a fish evolving to have legs and oxygen breathing lungs

That thing didn't happen overnight dude. There is no difference between "a single celled thing slightly changing" and "fish evolving to have legs"


This fella here is a lungfish. It is the closest thing you can get to a fish with legs. Except if you look closely, the "legs" are in the places where fishes usually have fins, and they also look like fins. In fact they are fins. Just a bit bigger and stronger. It uses the exact same muscles as regular fins. Except the lungfish also uses them as legs. Any fish can flop around on land, but the lungfish can do it a bit more deliberately. No big changes, no sudden appearance of legs. Simply a continuation of what already exists. Just slight modifications.

[TD1]

Not to mention flying fish.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I know what a lung fish is
But we didn't watch it slowly develope these things

And is it wrong to say observation is the best proof
And I don't really consider fossils as proof considering the fact that carbon dating isn't always accurate
(I'll try to find a link) there is a geologist who baught a 'new' carbon dating machine and went looking for fossils
The machine said they were x years old as most people would expect
This guy accidentaly left his hat at the excavation sight and a year later went back and found it covered in sand/dirt stuffs
He plopped it into the carbon dating thing and it said that his hat was several thousands of years old
(This was a leather hat, not sure if that affects anything)

[Graknorke]

I'm just going to say this (and I'm quoting my biology teacher here),"The only way to prove evolution is true is by observing it from the start to the finish, so either A) we would have to build a time machine, go back, and watch it happen. Or B) find a life bearing planet and observe it evolve"

Can you imagine if courts followed reasoning like this?
"The security footage shows the suspect going into the storage room with the victim, and leaving around 3 minutes later covered in blood holding a hammer. When I went to investigate, the suspect surrendered to me and I found the victim in the storage room beaten to death. The forensic evidence shows that the suspect was holding the hammer at the time it was covered with blood, the wounds on the victim match the hammer, and the time of death matches the security footage."
"Yes, but did you see it happen?"
It would be absurd. If you know the processes of how a thing happens, and have evidence that fits into how that thing happens why would you not think it happened?

Ninjad:

I know what a lung fish is
But we didn't watch it slowly develope these things

How about things that change their genes incredibly quickly? Bacteria and viruses for example?

[Il Palazzo]

I know what a lung fish is
But we didn't watch it slowly develope these things

And is it wrong to say observation is the best proof
And I don't really consider fossils as proof considering the fact that carbon dating isn't always accurate
(I'll try to find a link) there is a geologist who baught a 'new' carbon dating machine and went looking for fossils
The machine said they were x years old as most people would expect
This guy accidentaly left his hat at the excavation sight and a year later went back and found it covered in sand/dirt stuffs
He plopped it into the carbon dating thing and it said that his hat was several thousands of years old
(This was a leather hat, not sure if that affects anything)

Jesus, have you been reading answers in genesis? You can't carbon date fossils. There's no carbon in them!

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I'm done
This argument has been strung out too much

We know eachothers sides and I sure as heck know my standing enough that this is going freaking no where

Do we have anything else to discuss?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And is it wrong to say observation is the best proof
And I don't really consider fossils as proof considering the fact that carbon dating isn't always accurate
(I'll try to find a link) there is a geologist who baught a 'new' carbon dating machine and went looking for fossils
The machine said they were x years old as most people would expect
This guy accidentaly left his hat at the excavation sight and a year later went back and found it covered in sand/dirt stuffs
He plopped it into the carbon dating thing and it said that his hat was several thousands of years old
(This was a leather hat, not sure if that affects anything)

A. Carbon dating is but one method of many used in dating materials, useful only for a certain timeframe.

B. Of course it's going to say the hat covered in ancient rock dust is ancient!

C. Assuming this even happened. Sounds a lot like an anti-evolution "gotcha" story.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

It did happen
The guy has a whole facility for it, my church took a trip to it one year

[Il Palazzo]

Here, use this to get up to speed about radiometric dating:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2010
This excerpt might be of some use:

Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

    Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

[TD1]

And is it wrong to say observation is the best proof

Give me observable evidence that God exists.