[Blackened]

Originally Posted by icepick

you can't really observe evolution in larger species.

we've seen examples of evolution, mutation, and natural selection in bacteria. but you won't see dogs transform any time soon. we just don't live long enough to see it.

well, look at what artificial selection with dogs has done... we can see a huge variation from only a few hundred years, imagine what natural selection working over billions of years has done.

and true we have proof of evolution in smaller species.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by RichC123

P.S. What does "Jay Pan ROKK" mean?

Jay is just a name without any specific meaning.

Pan is related to pandeiro a percussion instrument that i play, also one of the greek god for eat, drink, get merry.

ROKK - each letter represent a teacher that influenced me, the last two KK are both Krishnamurti, J and UG.

I created this name as a joke, i belong to a band where every one has a pompous mystical nick name, of course i was completely drunk by the time.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by RichC123

Evolution isn't all of a sudden a dog gives birth to a bird and now it is a new animal.

It is a gradual process over millions of generations. The word "dog" is a general term and only applies to the version of that animal we know today. After millions of generations and millions of minute changes, the end product would still be based from a dog, but not necessarily exactly like a dog we know today.

Evolution can take many paths, or no path at all.

OK, i got that a living being may not change at all, or gradually change so they can to survive.

So, a dog becomes a different dog, again different and so on for thousand generations ... but, a moment comes where it is not a dog anymore and becomes something else.

This last change (from a dog perspective) is sudden and radical since it changes the basic dog format, is not that so ?

[icepick]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

OK, i got that a living being may not change at all, or gradually change so they can to survive.

So, a dog becomes a different dog, again different and so on for thousand generations ... but, a moment comes where it is not a dog anymore and becomes something else.

This last change (from a dog perspective) is sudden and radical since it changes the basic dog format, is not that so ?

the point where a dog isn't a dog any more is pretty much subjective. it all has to do with differences in physiological attributes along with DNA. scientists still have trouble agreeing on the boundaries of what defines a species.

[Acexwanderer]

Originally Posted by Jiu-Jitsu Cop

Although we will not see evolution as it takes too long I think science falls when it says that we all evolved from a single organism. If that is so how did some organisms become dogs and others became humans if it was all from the same type of organism. Science tries to provide an absolute answer but it can not and that is where it falls short. This argument could go on and on. I believe in GOD and if we want to use science to explain how GOD created things that is ok with me.

If a person wants to believe in science then that is also ok with me.

Science doesnt try to provide an absolute answer to everything, what we know is constantly changing.

Not saying anything but I observe that a lot of people who argue for creationism and against 'science' generally arent very intelligent.

[Mens Rea]

Originally Posted by Acexwanderer

Science doesnt try to provide an absolute answer to everything, what we know is constantly changing.

Not saying anything but I observe that a lot of people who argue for creationism and against 'science' generally arent very intelligent.

Generally, there is a direct correlation between the more someone knows about the theory of evolution and their acceptance of the theory...and vice versa.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by icepick

the point where a dog isn't a dog any more is pretty much subjective. it all has to do with differences in physiological attributes along with DNA. scientists still have trouble agreeing on the boundaries of what defines a species.

Hmm, interesting, maybe humans and chimps are not that much apart for 98% equal dna.

It reminds me a friend that use to say there is only one life on earth, the same dna among all living beings.

[muerteverde]

I was liking this until it came to the theistic argument and just fell on it face. There are so many problems here both the student and teacher should be embarrassed (if they were real). Let's take this point by point, starting with the second half.

Originally Posted by Mugen

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"And is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No sir, there isn't."

Yes there is. We can observe heat and cold with our physical senses. Only the trulyfaithful would be deluded enough to deny that heat exists based on their faith in Jesus over what their own skin tells them when they touch a hot pan.

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Temperature measures the molecular motion of a given substance. Cold is the absence of heat, I agree. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and certanly that heat doesn't exist. Cold as an absolute is the state of nonmotion but anything other than absolute zero is a lesser degree of motion. If I say "it is a cold day out today" I am making a meaningful statement because I am comparing the weather to my previous eerience with hot and cold. This "absense" of motion exists in its own right then from our perspective, and nothing here requires that we slower than -458 degrees (no motion). That is just a nonsequitor.

I will continue the rest of my critique in the following post as I went over the allowed character limit.

[muerteverde]

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

Darkness is a parallel example. Yes it is the absense of light, but that doesn't mean there are not degrees of darkness. The degrees of darkness operate in the same manner as degrees of light. If I turn on a second light now, I have less darkness. This does not mean we cannot have an absolute darkness. The student is just playing word games here.

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

The student also operates withing a system of duality. The professor is not neceearily wrong to do so however. If we have two samples, one at 10 degrees and the other at 100 degress, one is hotter and one is colder. This is a perfectly valid duality and we use this all the time. Now we can introduce a third sample at 0 degrees and a fourth at 200 degrees. Does this make thew first two samples no longer hot and cold? No. In relation to each other (subjective measurement) they are still hot and cold but now we need more precision to describe all the samples. But wait... that is why we have degrees! So we don't just say "hot" or "cold" we give a unit that tells how much energy. A scientist would not simple write down "hot" in an experiment, as this would be a useless duality. He would write 0.0 degrees Celsius.

Duality does not require that we measure. I like icecream more than I like radishes but I cannot measure this duality. Also, nothing that the professor said earlier implies a measurement. He was asking for value judgments on whether something was good or bad, a job which theists usually take up with glee. Now what makes the student say we cannot have a good god and a bad god? Is that his starting premise? Almost, but his starting premise, as we will soon see is actually only that we cannot have a bad god because he will define evil as the absence of God rather than the absence of good (the most serious flaw in the argument, IMO).

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

Seen electricity or magnetism? Science is a lot more than just seeing. We conduct experiements and see the results of magnetic attraction if that is what he wants. Through a long series of experiments we develop theoretic frameworks of predictions. This is how we come to understand the world we live in. Touch a pan and get burned. You didn't see the heat but you experienced it nonetheless and can understand that touching it again will burn you again, so we know that it is probably there and live with that assumption (not faith).

Death is the absence of life? So are rocks dead because they are devoid of life? No. Death is neither the absence of life nor its opposite. The student loses at his or her own word games. Death is the state of being after a living organism has ceased its life functions.

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

No professor of science anywhere teaches that. This shows us the entire conversation is fiction. Pathetic strawman too.

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

That is not how science works. That is not how we live our lives either. I have never been to China and seen it with my own eyes but I do not assume it is nonexistent. There is plenty of evidence beyond what we see with our eyes. In the case of evolution there are fossiles, DNA, geology, experiments with fast breeding animals, and a multitude of other strong evidences. In the case of the professor, the fact that every person needs a brain to function (induction), and the behavior exibited by the professor that indicates the use of a brain. Yes, even the fictional student has a brain, he just isn't using it properly.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

No we don't. I don't need to have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I assume it does just from my repeated observations and my theoretical understanding of the Earth's orbit.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.

Here we have the big one. Evil is the absence of not good, but GOD! Where did that come from? Obviously he has already defined God as perfectly good, so he can just perform a simple substitution. But why define God as the perfect good? Faulty premise. We can poke holes at this argument by asking what "absolute evil" would be, as in the cases of absolute dark and absolute cold. Can such a thing exist in his world view? We can measure temperature and lumination, but can we measure goodness on a scale from absolute evil to God? What unit of measure do we use? What is the metric symbol for that unit? It is a ridiculous argument, especially when he tries to equate goodness with heat or light.

It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

No, we did not create the word "evil" to describe the absence of God. Provide evidence of this outrageous claim. Also support the claim that God did not create evil. If I place my soda can in the refrigerator, I am causing the soda to cool down. I have removed the heat from the can and essentially created cold there. If we follow this student's logic, we can still come to the conclusion that God createdevil simply by not being present (though we cannot accept that evil is the absence of God, but just for the sake or argument we will allow it now). The example that the professor gave about the cancer patient still holds true. When a human commits evil by innaction it is called "sin by omision". That same concept applies here.

This students statements are true, can you or can you not make night darker?
Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero -458 degree's F.
Can you feel, taste, see, hear, or smell your brain?

No, they are not true or logically sound. Yes, you can make night darker. Nights are darker when the moon is not full, when you are father from a city, and when there is cloud cover. What does getting colder than absolute zero have to do with this argument? Nonsequitor. I don't need to smell my own brain to know it is there. Oh, and I can feel it. It has weight and I feel that. It does not take faith to know I have a brain because I am using induction to assume that it is there, allowing me to think.

[SideofKO]

Although we will not see evolution as it takes too long

Wrong. We see speciation all the time. All species are in transition at all times. The only thing we can't observe right now is one species changing into something radically different which takes ages and even then we'd have to have a time lapse camera to show the species and it's thousands of incremental transitional speciation. However, the fossil record provides a nice slide show of transitional species.

I think science falls when it says that we all evolved from a single organism.

Is this a rejection of the actual science, or a rejection due to personal comfort. I.E. not wanting to believe that our species is branched off from a single celled prokaryote billions of years ago?

If that is so how did some organisms become dogs and others became humans if it was all from the same type of organism.

Evolution provides an explanation. Adaptation, natural selection, mutation. Also, this is a bit of a Gaps argument.

Science tries to provide an absolute answer but it can not and that is where it falls short. This argument could go on and on

.

Wrong again. Science doesn't deal with absolutes.

I believe in GOD and if we want to use science to explain how GOD created things that is ok with me.

So again, it's back to an issue of comfort.

We've explained a great deal without invoking a deity. Which deity would you propose has created everything?

Also, if you want to insert a god into the equation, and if science is explaining how this god created everything... then if science came to the conclusion that we evolved from single celled organisms, why couldn't this be your god at work?

If a person wants to believe in science then that is also ok with me.

If a person wants to believe in Thor, this is okay with me as well...