Evolution 'not established truth'

[TheGavin]

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
You should know something about the Bible in order to discuss it intelligently. You don't know anything.
Why don't you read the Bible BEFORE you ask really weird questions?
Man - you're asking for a hard lesson.
I am going to have to give it to you and you won't like it.
Wilson.

I'm waiting Wilson...chock full of anticipation.

[Gillette]

>>>Wilson
Man - you're asking for a hard lesson.
I am going to have to give it to you and you won't like it.

>>>Gillette
You earlier promised us the same "hard lessons" disproving the science of evolution, yet so far all you've done is make a damn fool of yourself.

[TheGavin]

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
+++Wilson++
Prove it.(You might be in for a surprise)
+++Gavin++
Are you telling me that Adam and Eve had a rabbit litter of children, who were born BEFORE Cain, Abel and Seth...but were not mentioned?
+++Wilson++
Just your imagination.
+++Gavin++
...so that later, these three men could go seek wives, provided by their parents? Or do we just accept that Nod was..."just there." EVEN THOUGH, Genisis seems to be so careful about supplying a linage, an order of events...but leaves out Nod? What the heck Wilson?
+++Wilson++
More imagination. Somebody's messing with your head.
READ YOUR BIBLE FIRST.
*Nohdh*
A land “east of Eden,” in which the condemned murderer Cain took up residence.(Ge 4:16) The Hebrew word 'nohdh'(fugitiveness) is derived from the root word 'nudh,' a form of which is rendered “fugitive” in verses 12 and 14.
ADAM HAD DAUGHTERS, YOU KNOW
“...Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters...”(Genesis 5:4)
Cain went into banishment in “the land of Fugitiveness to the east of Eden,” TAKING WITH HIM HIS WIFE, AN ANONYMOUS DAUGHTER OF ADAM AND EVE.(Ge 4:16, 17; compare 5:4, also the much later example of Abraham’s marriage to his half sister Sarah, Ge 20:12.) Following the birth of his son Enoch, Cain “engaged in building a city,” naming it for his son. Such city may have been but a fortified village by present standards, and the record does not state when it was completed. His descendants are listed in part and include men who distinguished themselves in nomadic stock raising, the playing of musical instruments, and the forging of metal tools as well as those who were known for their practice of polygamy and their violence.(Ge 4:17-24)
Cain’s (family) line ended with the global Flood of Noah’s day.
Wilson.

No Wilson...Nod is in the bible. Nod is mentioned quite clearly. Which of the MANY bible references (version) are you using?

Do you stick with the same version? Or do you jump around?

(Of Cain) Genesis 4 (King James Version)

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest *any finding him* should kill him.(*Who would kill him Wilson? Who else could there possibly be to kill him? His ENTIRE family knew to leave him alone, it was God's command. And if we're literal, as you insist it should be, WHO ELSE would kill him? There WAS NO ONE ELSE. Adam and Eve and their sons and daughters were it, Right? And surely their further offspring and those of Seth would be informed accordingly...Unless Cain was saying he feared what *other people* might think of him, outside of there homestead?)

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.(Note: Nod in hebrew is the root of the verb "to wander"...and some suggest that a better etymological etiology of Cains endless exile would be better to suggest that "Land of Nod" is refering to his endless wandering, "The Land of Wandering"...which, evidently...anything east of Eden implies the area to be bleak. This would make MUCH MORE sense, especially keeping in line with the literal take on the bible. But this STILL doesn't explain why Cain should fear ANYONE, especially if the *Land of Nod*...is to be understood as a description of his divine sentence *to wander*, rather than exile to a place that would make his fear plausible by suggesting *inhabitants* or an area inhabitated by other individuals who would kill him...when supposedly...NO ONE ELSE, except his immediate family, exists!)

[TheGavin]

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
+++Wilson++
Prove it.(You might be in for a surprise)
+++Gavin++
Are you telling me that Adam and Eve had a rabbit litter of children, who were born BEFORE Cain, Abel and Seth...but were not mentioned?
+++Wilson++
Just your imagination.
+++Gavin++
...so that later, these three men could go seek wives, provided by their parents? Or do we just accept that Nod was..."just there." EVEN THOUGH, Genisis seems to be so careful about supplying a linage, an order of events...but leaves out Nod? What the heck Wilson?
+++Wilson++
More imagination. Somebody's messing with your head.
READ YOUR BIBLE FIRST.
*Nohdh*
A land “east of Eden,” in which the condemned murderer Cain took up residence.(Ge 4:16) The Hebrew word 'nohdh'(fugitiveness) is derived from the root word 'nudh,' a form of which is rendered “fugitive” in verses 12 and 14.
ADAM HAD DAUGHTERS, YOU KNOW
“...Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters...”(Genesis 5:4)
Cain went into banishment in “the land of Fugitiveness to the east of Eden,” TAKING WITH HIM HIS WIFE, AN ANONYMOUS DAUGHTER OF ADAM AND EVE.(Ge 4:16, 17; compare 5:4, also the much later example of Abraham’s marriage to his half sister Sarah, Ge 20:12.) Following the birth of his son Enoch, Cain “engaged in building a city,” naming it for his son. Such city may have been but a fortified village by present standards, and the record does not state when it was completed. His descendants are listed in part and include men who distinguished themselves in nomadic stock raising, the playing of musical instruments, and the forging of metal tools as well as those who were known for their practice of polygamy and their violence.(Ge 4:17-24)
Cain’s (family) line ended with the global Flood of Noah’s day.
Wilson.

No Wilson...Nod is in the bible. Nod is mentioned quite clearly. Which of the MANY bible references (version) are you using?

Do you stick with the same version? Or do you jump around?

(Of Cain) Genesis 4 (King James Version)

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest *any finding him* should kill him.(*Who would kill him Wilson? Who else could there possibly be to kill him? His ENTIRE family knew to leave him alone, it was God's command. And if we're literal, as you insist it should be, WHO ELSE would kill him? There WAS NO ONE ELSE. Adam and Eve and their sons and daughters were it, Right? And surely their further offspring and those of Seth would be informed accordingly...Unless Cain was saying he feared what *other people* might think of him, outside of there homestead?)

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.(Note: Nod in hebrew is the root of the verb "to wander"...and some suggest that a better etymological etiology of Cains endless exile would be better to suggest that "Land of Nod" is refering to his endless wandering, "The Land of Wandering"...which, evidently...anything east of Eden implies the area to be bleak. This would make MICH MORE sense, especially keeping in line with the literal take on the bible. But this STILL doesn't explain why Cain should fear ANYONE, especially if the *Land of Nod*...is to be understood as a description of his divine sentence *to wander*, rather than exile to a place that would make his fear plausible by suggesting *inhabitants* or an area inhabitated by other individuals who would kill him...ESPECIALLY since there should be NO ONE ELSE, except his immediate family, in existance!)

[FossilBob]

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>

Cain’s (family) line ended with the global Flood of Noah’s day.Wilson.

Which, of course, never happened, as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated over and over and over again...

And before you reply (you rarely do anyway), you might consider this:

"You should know something about GEOLOGY in order to discuss it intelligently. You don't know anything.

Why don't you read GEOLOGY TEXTBOOKS BEFORE you ask really weird questions?

Man - you're asking for a hard lesson.

I am going to have to give it to you and you won't like it."

[CreationScience]

Like I said- most mutations are either neutral or detrimental.
The talkorigins article you referenced said the exact same thing. They just like to stress the fact that a large majority are neutral, which I agree with.

I've never denied anything about mutations that happen to have beneficial outcomes, but the problem is that the "beneficial mutations are depend on the organism's environment".
Just like TalkOrigins says- "A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another." (sickle cell anemia).

Oh, and TO makes a complete straw man argument by saying this:
"Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model."

Evolution of photosynthesis may be an argument from incredulity, but if you believe that photosynthesis evolved without evidence, that's an argument from faith.
There is no answer to the evolution of photosynthesis, and for anyone to say that there is- is a liar.

Naturalism-
First of all, most of scientific discovery and invention has nothing to do with evolution.
The manufacturing of computers, putting man on the moon, satellites, and many other things are completely different. These scientists learn about the world, and then make/do things that use what they've learned.
Evolution is historical speculation, based on our interpretation of what we see.

The point that I was trying to make (and I think some of you missed it) is that it is impossible to study anything outside of nature. God is outside of nature.
Evolution is the only explanation that can come about naturally, that's why you guys defend it with your lives.

[CreationScience]

Bluenose wrote:

<quoted text>
EVEN IF what you say here is true, it does not refute evolution. Evolution is an observation, that species change over time is a fact and is observable both from the fossil record, by observation of extant species and by experiment. IF your idea were true, it would only refute part of the theoretical understanding of HOW evolution occurs.
However, since what you said is complete cut and paste BS from the creationist web sites and you have already been given the links to show you why what you said is bunk, we do not need to further concern ourselves with it, do we?
BTW, I suspect your professor did have the answer for you, but you lack the wit to understand it.

I lack the wit to understand it?
Let's see if I can remember what he said.... Hmm...

"I don't know the answer to that question".
It doesn't take too much wit to understand that one, does it?

Yes, variability has been observed.
Mutations, natural selection, adaptation, variability, etc... have all been observed.
But you assume that it's possible for these processes to result in large-scale evolution, which is completely impossible.

I don't copy and paste anything, by the way.

You said that it would change our theoretical understanding of HOW evolution occurs- which it should, but it doesn't.
The public school textbooks keep repeating that mutations are the raw-material for evolution.
It's a bunch of BS.

[Feklahr]

CreationScience wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a bunch of BS.

Defend this assertion, please.

[Fossil Bob]

CreationScience wrote:

The point that I was trying to make (and I think some of you missed it) is that it is impossible to study anything outside of nature. God is outside of nature.
Evolution is the only explanation that can come about naturally, that's why you guys defend it with your lives.

I think most here are aware that God is outside of nature. Those posting here run the gamut of atheist to "church-going" Christian.

The only people really desperately, defending anything to the last gasp are the fundamentalists (Creationists, particularly YECs) who can not, and WILL not, allow acknowledgement of any data that points toward the evolutionary process (such as transitional organisms).

They ignore evidence, twist evidence, and fabricate evidence...passionately! They defend a 6,000 year-old Earth and "Noah's Flood" with their lives. They have to...

[CreationScience]

Feklahr wrote:

<quoted text>
Defend this assertion, please.

Which part of evolution would you like me to talk about?

[TedHOhio]

CreationScience wrote:

Like I said- most mutations are either neutral or detrimental.
The talkorigins article you referenced said the exact same thing. They just like to stress the fact that a large majority are neutral, which I agree with.
I've never denied anything about mutations that happen to have beneficial outcomes, but the problem is that the "beneficial mutations are depend on the organism's environment".
Just like TalkOrigins says- "A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another." (sickle cell anemia).
Oh, and TO makes a complete straw man argument by saying this:
"Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model."
Evolution of photosynthesis may be an argument from incredulity, but if you believe that photosynthesis evolved without evidence, that's an argument from faith.
There is no answer to the evolution of photosynthesis, and for anyone to say that there is- is a liar.
Naturalism-
First of all, most of scientific discovery and invention has nothing to do with evolution.
The manufacturing of computers, putting man on the moon, satellites, and many other things are completely different. These scientists learn about the world, and then make/do things that use what they've learned.
Evolution is historical speculation, based on our interpretation of what we see.
The point that I was trying to make (and I think some of you missed it) is that it is impossible to study anything outside of nature. God is outside of nature.
Evolution is the only explanation that can come about naturally, that's why you guys defend it with your lives.

No, mutations fall into one of three categories. They are either detrimental, benign, or beneficial. But to make that determination you have to look at the environment of the organism. Individual organisms mutate, and the existing environment toward survival and reproductive opportunity determine which category.

The reason this is important is that if the environment changes, like Galapagos finches and seed availability due to drought, a benign or even detrimental mutation may become beneficial. By the same token a beneficial mutation may become benign or even detrimental.

I think you are reading too much X-Men into the idea of mutation. Mutation isn't some huge change, but normally a small one. When two people have a child the child is an amalgamation of their DNA, not a direct copy of one or the other. This process isn't perfect, but small changes can be introduced during the reproductive process. Genes don't always copy perfectly, as genetic studies have proven.

Plus you should remember that populations evolve, so the impact of any mutation isn't felt immediately. It is only as a mutation is passed to subsequent generations -- something it can only do if an organism survives and reproduces -- can a population evolve. Mutations that are so detrimental that an infant dies immediately are not ones that cause a population to evolve.

[Feklahr]

CreationScience wrote:

<quoted text>
Which part of evolution would you like me to talk about?

You can start with this:

"But you assume that it's possible for these processes to result in large-scale evolution, which is completely impossible."

[TedHOhio]

CreationScience wrote:

<quoted text>
I lack the wit to understand it?
Let's see if I can remember what he said.... Hmm...
"I don't know the answer to that question".
It doesn't take too much wit to understand that one, does it?
Yes, variability has been observed.
Mutations, natural selection, adaptation, variability, etc... have all been observed.
But you assume that it's possible for these processes to result in large-scale evolution, which is completely impossible.
I don't copy and paste anything, by the way.
You said that it would change our theoretical understanding of HOW evolution occurs- which it should, but it doesn't.
The public school textbooks keep repeating that mutations are the raw-material for evolution.
It's a bunch of BS.

Mutations provide the avenue by which new genetic material is introduced. Here is an interesting column about what would happen if mutation stopped.
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/

It's also not an assumption new species are the result of evolutionary changes, it's been replicated in the lab and also on an island of Croatia, even in London -- just in the last 50 or so years. It's been observed and cataloged. You just don't like the answers.

So if speciation is not the results of evolution, include mutation when I use the phrase evolution, how do new species come about? Since the evidence says there there have been many species that have come and gone on this planet, that even us humans haven't been around very long. What is your idea of how speciation happens?

Only I am really not interested in your opinion, support it with links to reputable scientific documentation -- please note the word reputable.

[tangled bank]

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
Tangled,
The old out-of-context song and dance, eh? Both of us know you said the wrong thing......

Are you not tired of embarassing yourself? The evidence of your "out of context" quote can be clearly seen in your post #1095 and #1125.

[tangled bank]

Wilson wrote:

........
I supplied information showing that Hebrew was the original language. I’ll post it again:
"Secular history does not reveal the origin of the Hebrew language—or, for that matter, of ANY of the most ancient languages known, such as Sumerian, Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), Aramaean, and Egyptian. This is because these tongues appear already fully developed in the earliest written records men have found.
The Bible is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew..........

You are trying so hard to make the Babel story (Gen 11:5-9) literal, that you are ignoring the fact that there were many languages before Hebrew. From Wikipedia:
"Date Language Attestation Notes
c. 3100 BC Sumerian Jemdet Nasr see Sumerian cuneiform; "proto-literate" period from about 3500 BC (see Kish tablet)
c. 2700 BC Egyptian tomb of Seth-Peribsen (2nd Dynasty, Umm el-Qa'ab see Egyptian hieroglyphs; "proto-hieroglyphic" inscriptions from about 3300 BC (Naqada III; see Abydos, Egypt, Narmer Palette)
c. 2400 BC Eblaite
c. 2300 BC Akkadian
c. 2250 BC Elamite Awan dynasty peace treaty with Naram-Sin
c. 2000 BC Hurrian
c. 1800 BC West Semitic / proto-Canaanite Middle Bronze Age alphabets
c. 1800 BC Luwian Luwian hieroglyphs
c. 1650 BC Hittite Various cuneiform texts and Palace Chronicles written during the reign of Hattusili I, from the archives at Hattusas see Hittite cuneiform, Hittite texts
c. 1500 BC Canaanite Proto-Canaanite alphabet
c. 15th-14th / 13th century BC Greek Linear B tablet archive from Bronze Age Knossos
c. 1400 BC Hattic fragmentary, known only from a few glosses in Hittite texts
c. 1300 BC Ugaritic see Ugaritic script".

Hebrew is not listed in these early languages. The first evidence of it was the 1900s discovery the Gezer Calendar dated to 950 BC.

[tangled bank]

Wilson wrote:

..........
Linguist Dr. Mason also points out that “the idea that ‘savages’ speak in a series of grunts, and are unable to express many ‘civilized’ concepts, is very wrong,” and that “many of the languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European ones.”(Science News Letter, September 3, 1955, p. 148)
The evidence is thus against any evolutionary origin of speech or of ancient languages.........

A 2007 study: ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2007)— A new study in Current Biology reveals that adaptive changes in a human gene involved in speech and language were shared by our closest extinct relatives, the Neandertals. The finding reveals that the human form of the gene arose much earlier than scientists had estimated previously. It also raises the possibility that Neandertals possessed some of the prerequisites for language.........."The current results show that the Neandertals carried a FOXP2 protein that was identical to that of present-day humans in the only two positions that differ between human and chimpanzee," the researchers concluded. "Leaving out the unlikely scenario of gene flow [between the two lineages], this establishes that these changes were present in the common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals.

[tangled bank]

CreationScience wrote:

<quoted text>
I lack the wit to understand it?
Let's see if I can remember what he said.... Hmm...
"I don't know the answer to that question".
It doesn't take too much wit to understand that one, does it?
Yes, variability has been observed.
Mutations, natural selection, adaptation, variability, etc... have all been observed.
But you assume that it's possible for these processes to result in large-scale evolution, which is completely impossible.
I don't copy and paste anything, by the way.
You said that it would change our theoretical understanding of HOW evolution occurs- which it should, but it doesn't.
The public school textbooks keep repeating that mutations are the raw-material for evolution.
It's a bunch of BS.

So because a professor said he/she didn't know the answer to your question, that this automatically nullifies the 150 years of geological, embryological, biochemical, and ecological evidence which supports evolution? Also, am I to assume that since this question was unanswered, that Creation Science is the correct solution?

[TedHOhio]

Wilson wrote:

<quoted text>
You - Nose,
Soak this in - again!
"Secular history does not reveal the origin of the Hebrew language—or, for that matter, of ANY of the most ancient languages known, such as Sumerian, Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), Aramaean, and Egyptian. THIS IS BECAUSE THESE TONGUES APPEAR ALREADY FULLY DEVELOPED IN THE EARLIEST WRITTEN RECORDS MEN HAVE FOUND.
The Bible is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew. It was, of course, spoken by the Israelite descendants of “Abram the Hebrew”(Ge 14:13), who, in turn, was descended from Noah’s son Shem.(Ge 11:10-26)
Can't I do any better? See what you can do with that!
Wilson.

Hey wee-wille, Hebrew wasn't even the original language of the Bible, and no it wasn't Aramaic either. Care to take a guess?

[Feklahr]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey wee-wille, Hebrew wasn't even the original language of the Bible, and no it wasn't Aramaic either. Care to take a guess?

Just like Shakespeare, it was Klingonese!

[Gillette]

>>>>CreationScienc e
Let's see if I can remember what [my biology teacher] said.... Hmm...

"I don't know the answer to that question".
It doesn't take too much wit to understand that one, does it?

>>>Gillette
Since you have such a good memory, can you remember exactly what question you asked your biology teacher?