[Credendovidis]

The January 2009 issue of the Institute for Creation Research Email letter contains an article called "The Wax That Taxes Darwin".

The article ends with the following paragraph :

Did the earwax produced by ceruminous cells and the complex antimicrobial molecules within the secretion, along with the unique manner in which old squamous cells slough off, come about through time, chance, and natural processes? Or was it by the purpose and plan of an all-wise Creator?

No, it was NOT by the purpose and plan of an all-wise Creator.
It was a logical consequence of evolution, that ensures that through regular modifications the life version that is best adapted to it's environment will produce more offspring and therefore survive all peers that were not modified (and therefore less adapted).
Good hearing was - and still is - an important aid to survival.

Our human ears are not the only ones that contain the mentioned features. Many mammals have the same ear, cell, and wax features.
Note that this was however not mentioned in the ICR article.

It's as Dawkins stated :

Why is "God" (or "Creator", or ''Designer'') considered an explanation for anything?
It is not : it's a failure to explain. It's a shrug of the shoulders. It's a "I dunno" dressed up in spirituality and ritual.
If someone credits something to "God", generally what it means is that they have not a clue, or that they have other sly motives.
Ask them for an explanation of where "God" came from, and odds are you'll get a vague pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature.
Which of course explains nothing ....

The ICR credits the ear and ear wax to "the Creator". It's a sly motive for covering up their own incapability to provide any OSE for the existence of "God", and supporting their "God" myth.

When will the ICR accept the obvious ? It's evolution that is at the basis of all these spectacular improvements !

Any comments ? Please keep to the text and content of this topic !

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

It's evolution that is at the basis of all these spectacular improvements

Please provide your OSE for evolution.

[Credendovidis]

Please provide your OSE for evolution.

There is ample OSE for evolution. In books, studies, papers, Internet, etc.
But if you refuse to accept it as a premise - like you do - no OSE will do.
Note that for the religious claim of "God" there is no OSE. It's a BELIEF!!

:)

.

.

[Fr_Chuck]

The fact that animas adapt and change does not disprove the bible creation, What it does show is that not all sience accepts blindly unproved beliefs.

[Tj3]

There is ample OSE for evolution. In books, studies, papers, Internet, etc.

That is the answer that I get from every evolutionist. I hear the claim that evidence exists, but we never see any evidence brought forward. You demanded OSE from those who believe in God, so it seeems to me that it is only fair that we sshould expect to see some evidence for your position.

I have examined this topic for many years, ever since the days that I was defending evolution, and it was while I was preparing to pull together the evidence to better defend evolution that I suddenly found myself having to backtrack because the evidence simply did not support the premise. It was the evidence which convinced me that evolution was in error.

No one disagrees with micro-evolution - change within a species. That is well established. But without evidence to substantiate the claim, one cannot simply extrapolate from micro-evolution to macro-evolution. The same studies that so clearly establish micro-evolution are also one of the biggest concerns to those who hold to macr-evolution. For example, the rate of change in the DNA for the HIV is incredible, yet despite this fantastic rate of change, the HIV has only demonstrated adaptation within a species, but not a change to a different species.

[michealb]

So where is the species barrier that prevents minor changes from adding up over time to something that isn't like the original species anymore. Here is a clue there isn't one which is why like always TJ3 when it comes to this subject matter you are wrong.

This is a tired debate and the only people who don't think evolution is a fact are people that are trying to push their religious agenda or haven't studied the matter.

The people that haven't studied the matter can be taught the first group however. It is like arguing with the homeless guy on the street corner who thinks gerbils are going to take over the planet. He has his own set of facts that as far as he is concerned are the only thing that matter and no amount of reason and evidence is going to convince him otherwise. There is no point in arguing with him it's best just to make sure that other people have enough education to know that gerbils aren't trying to take over the planet and creationism isn't science it is made up tale, uneducated people in the desert made up to explain things they didn't understand.

We as a species should be above such superstitions.

[Credendovidis]

That is the answer that I get from every evolutionist. I hear the claim that evidence exists, but we never see any evidence brought forward.

Never see any evidence? How many more books, research papers, etc. have to be published till you 'see' it?
Of course you can question the OSE for evolution, sure !
But to state that you have never seen any evidence for evolution is a clear and nonsensical lie !

You demanded

You demanded OSE from those who believe in God, so it seems to me that it is only fair that we should expect to see some evidence for your position.

from those who believe in God, so it seems to me that it is only fair that we should expect to see some evidence for your position.

Incorrect ! I accept without any problems that people believe in "God".
It is once they start claiming that their religion based claims are "true" (like for instance creation, heaven, hell, devils, Jesus as "God's son", etc.), that I request OSE for "God's" existence.
And I am still waiting, as that OSE was never provided. All one ever gets at best is subjective opinion...

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

So where is the species barrier that prevents minor changes from adding up over time to something that isn't like the original species anymore. Here is a clue there isn't one which is why like always TJ3 when it comes to this subject matter you are wrong.

To say that there is not one suggests that you have proof that there isn't any. Without such proof, you are saying that you have faith that there is no such barrier, in spite of the evidence that no species has ever been proven to have changed into a new species.

[Tj3]

Never see any evidence? How many more books, research papers, etc. have to be published till you 'see' it?
Of course you can question the OSE for evolution, sure !

If there is so much proof, surely you could provide us with some of this evidence.

[Credendovidis]

If there is so much proof, surely you could provide us with some of this evidence.

Why don't you first offer apologies for your deliberate untruths as pointed out in my post #7 ?

:)

.

.

[michealb]

To say that there is not one suggests that you have proof that there isn't any. Without such proof, you are saying that you have faith that there is no such barrier, in spite of the evidence that no species has ever been proven to have changed into a new species.

I don't know how many times this has to be said. You can not prove something doesn't exist. Just because I can't prove a that an invisible, silent, orderless, mass less, pink unicorn exists doesn't mean I get to use it my scientific theories.

New species come about all the time just because you are ignorant of this knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How do you think new diseases come about?

[Tj3]

I don't know how many times this has to be said. You can not prove something doesn't exist.

Then you cannot prove that there is no barrier between species, so you must provide proof that species change does occur through evolution.

New species come about all the time just because you are ignorant of this knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Prove your belief that species come about through evolution.

How do you think new diseases come about?

Many different origins are known for what we call new diseases, such as:

1) Some people who do not have immunity to a particular disease exhibit symptoms when first exposed, symptoms that may not be seen in people who are born and raised in the environment. One such investigation of a new disease was discussed on TV just a couple of weeks ago.

2) Variations within a species (virus or bacteria) that causes new or more severe symptoms (i.e. Legionnaires disease was not a new organism, just a variant on an old one)

Still waiting for OSE for evolution.

[michealb]

Wow, how little you know about modern biology.

So say you got sick by E Coli
Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Escherichia
Species: E. coli

If you got sick by Tetanus not only is it a completely different species it is in a completely different division.
Kingdom: Bacteria
Division: Firmicutes
Class: Clostridia
Order: Clostridiales
Family: Clostridiaceae
Genus: Clostridium
Species: C. tetani

You not knowing that there are species within the bacteria kingdom just means not only are you trying to push your religious agenda. You also are lacking in knowledge.

[michealb]

Here you go also OSE for macro evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

[Tj3]

Wow, how little you know about modern biology.

So say you got sick by E Coli
Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Escherichia
Species: E. coli

If you got sick by Tetanus not only is it a completely different species it is in a completely different division.
Kingdom: Bacteria
Division: Firmicutes
Class: Clostridia
Order: Clostridiales
Family: Clostridiaceae
Genus: Clostridium
Species: C. tetani

You not knowing that there are species within the bacteria kingdom just means not only are you trying to push your religious agenda. You also are lacking in knowledge.

Where did I say that these two bacteria were the same species?

[Tj3]

Here you go also OSE for macro evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

I went to the link and it just gives references to other books. I've read many books on evolution and have a number here in my room. So what? I could respond by simply saying here is the response and provide you with a website link also, or a list of books to read. So does he who provides the most website links win?

When you wanted evidence, I took the time to provide specifics, not just website links. Do you have any evidence, or just website links?

[michealb]

What you were looking at was the reference section of the article. That's why it contains a list of books. If you can't read a correctly sited article why would we take the nonsense that you post seriously?

The reason I post websites instead of my own ramblings like you do is because the website I posted is correctly sited as to where it gets it's information and there for carries more weight to what it says.

There isn't going to be a winner to this debate because as I said you argue with your own set of facts and will never acknowledge anything else regardless of how much evidence there is. So when I reply to you don't think I'm trying to convince you of the facts because I realize that they mean nothing to you. I reply so that someone else who doesn't have the benefit of education as I have, doesn't see your posts unanswered and assume since no one answered you that you are correct.

[Tj3]

What you were looking at was the reference section of the article. That's why it contains a list of books. If you can't read a correctly sited article why would we take the nonsense that you post seriously?

Ho hum. The point remains, I do not plan to read a whole website to gather what you think may be evidence. If you have something, then bring it forward and summarize it. It is of course fine to use a reference, but don't expect that people are going to read websites.

There isn't going to be a winner to this debate because as I said you argue with your own set of facts

I have validated all my points which scientific evidence. That is all I am looking for from you.

[NeedKarma]

but don't expect that people are going to read websites.

Here is a list of their references if you want books:
references - books.zip

[Fr_Chuck]

Same old name calling nothing new

Closed