PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 15 16 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's the problem Zucadragon -is there some forum rule I'm contravening here? Is encouragement not allowed? And what makes it paternal as opposed to congenial and friendly? Not 'scientific' enough for you huh? Why don't you just chill out and try be a human.You're sounding rather paternal yourself now that I think of it.

As for the rest of the pompous drivel - evolution is imaginary hogwash not science, not demonstrable, not repeatable, not even common sense -a desperate delusion. I haven't seen anything from evolutionists but their interpretations of evidence based on the presumption of naturalism which means a biased interpretation not based on fact but on fictitious philisophical imaginings to the exclusion of any other possible interpretation.
It's like saying two people could have done the crime but we prefer to believe that it is the one (natural processes)and refuse to entertain the possibility that it is the other (intelligent supernatural designer) - so on that biased assumption, we invent all our plausible stories and then present them as FACT.

To take it one step further, just in case you don't get it -either there is a God or there isn't -evolutionists assume there isn't one (or at least not one that did anything) and then assume that they're right and then make up all their inventive stories about how everything came from nothing and made itself and then they wonder why we don't believe them.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:05 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:05 AM on June 9, 2009 :
I haven't seen anything from evolutionists but their interpretations of evidence based on the presumption of naturalism which means a biased interpretation not based on fact but on fictitious philisophical imaginings to the exclusion of any other possible interpretation.


How do you tell if you have made a mistake?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:55 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you tell if you have made a
mistake?


God will tell him.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:07 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
As for the rest of the pompous drivel - evolution is imaginary hogwash not science, not demonstrable, not repeatable, not even common sense -a desperate delusion. I haven't seen anything from evolutionists but their interpretations of evidence based on the presumption of naturalism which means a biased interpretation not based on fact but on fictitious philisophical imaginings to the exclusion of any other possible interpretation.
It's like saying two people could have done the crime but we prefer to believe that it is the one (natural processes)and refuse to entertain the possibility that it is the other (intelligent supernatural designer) - so on that biased assumption, we invent all our plausible stories and then present them as FACT.


Lester, this is a good example of what you always have to say - you just ignore the evidence and sprout your opinions, nothing more.  

1.  You have demonstrated over and over again that you don't really understand how science works.  If you did, then you would understand why Creationism isn't science, and why it shouldn't be taught in the science classroom.  

Don't worry, a lot of people are in the same boat as you - even our former president, George W Bush, doesn't understand (just like he doesn't understand so many other things).  You say, 'Give Creationism equal time with evolution - what's wrong with that?'.  GW said the same thing.

Well Lester, if you believe that, then you might as well also allow equal time for mysticism in physics, and equal to for alchemy in chemistry class.  Creationism is in the same category as mysticism and alchemy - it has no scientific value, no evidence to support it, no useful predictive qualities, is not testable, is not falsifiable.  

But you can't see that because you don't understand how science operates.  Science threathens your religious beliefs, so you have to deny it.  Understanding it would crush your religious faith. You automatically deny anything that threatens your fundamentalist beliefs.  You even deny the very quotes in the Bible that are obviously wrong - those regarding a geocentric flat earth.

I don't blame you for denying flat earth quotes, because if you accept those as literally true, and we know those quotes are literally wrong, then what makes anything else the Bible says true?

And science?  Damn that science, it contradicts your religious beliefs.  So you ignore it too.  

You've painted yourself into a tight corner, tangled yourself in a web of denial and self deception.  

You're intellectually dishonest Lester.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:26 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, as long as they get the last word in, admonish you(& me) they are correct and you'll just have to accept it. Life isn't fair.

But I do take exception to Orion's strawman assertion that " Damn that science, it contradicts your religious beliefs." Maybe according to you?

For example..Genesis written over 3,000 years ago,  Who except God knew the correct sequence of events? How could any human author of that time know that plants came before animals, or that fishes came before land animals, or that Light came before everything else?

.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 4:57 PM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 4:57 PM on June 10, 2009 :

For example..Genesis written over 3,000 years ago,  Who except God knew the correct sequence of events? How could any human author of that time know that plants came before animals, or that fishes came before land animals, or that Light came before everything else?


Which was created first, man or animals?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:12 PM on June 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For example..Genesis written over 3,000 years ago,  Who except God knew the correct sequence of events? How could any human author of that time know that plants came before animals, or that fishes came before land animals, or that Light came before everything else?


Gluteus - are you serious?  

Would you care to go back and read Genesis from your Bible and tell us which parts are correct?  

It is quite apparent to me that modern scientific knowledge contradicts everything that is in the Biblical creation myth.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:09 AM on June 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For example..Genesis written over 3,000 years ago,  Who except God knew the correct sequence of events? How could any human author of that time know that plants came before animals, or that fishes came before land animals,
I beg your pardon... Are you using evolutionary common knowledge to validate the biblical text?

You don't believe Evolution to be true, but when we tell you that it shows that fish came before land animals, it suddenly becomes reliable?
or that Light came before everything else?
Not true. You had a shapeless Earth before that.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:30 PM on June 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The basic creationist mechanism seems to be:
Force the Bible to adjust to modern science. Force it as hard as you can.

When it can't be forced anymore, drop science.

It's like a bed of Procustes, buth coupled with wishful thinking the bed changes sizes too.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:34 PM on June 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp's reply -

For example..Genesis written over 3,000 years ago,  Who except God knew the correct sequence of events? How could any human author of that time know that plants came before animals, or that fishes came before land animals,


I beg your pardon... Are you using evolutionary common knowledge to validate the biblical text?

You don't believe Evolution to be true, but when we tell you that it shows that fish came before land animals, it suddenly becomes reliable?


Very, very good point Wisp.  You nailed the fallacy in gluteus's statement right on.

(Edited by orion 6/11/2009 at 12:49 PM).

(Edited by orion 6/11/2009 at 12:51 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:47 PM on June 11, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:30 PM on June 11, 2009 :
or that Light came before everything else?
Not true. You had a shapeless Earth before that.



I would go even farther by saying that we had stars before there was light! After the big bang there was a period for about .7 billion years where it was so dense that the whole universe was opaque.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:58 AM on June 12, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm amazed how little creationists know, sorry, UNDERSTAND about evolution or science in general. I think that everyone on this forum at least should be made to take 2 exams to be able to post:
1. Evolution
2. Creationism/ID or whatever it might be called nowadays.

Passing the exams would indicate that you know what the topic was about, how it worked, why it worked and knew how to demonstrate that knowledge in such a way that if you produced a statement about it that you now knew to be false, you would be given a good slapping.

Just a thought I had...


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 2:41 PM on June 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd so vote for that!

Thanks, orion!
Edit: Is this fallacy "Special Pleading"? Is there any other that fits better?

Good point, Fencer.


(Edited by wisp 6/15/2009 at 02:23 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:17 AM on June 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see the EVOS fan club is alive and well.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to define "science" in the context of this debate. I recently found an article by a Paleontologist at Berkley, Bruce H. Tiffey. While I would surmise that he falls on the other end of the spectrum from me I found this article to be quite refreshing in that it illuminates some of the background reasons for this controversy.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/tiffney3a.html

Here are his last two points that I believe are particularly relevant to this discussion:

3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!

4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. "Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables — while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations — as possible.


I would define "creation science" as science viewed through the "alternate interpretation" of creation.

How is this less valid than science as viewed through the "alternate interpretation" of evolution?

Posted by Galileo at Sun June 14, 2009 - 2:41 PM
I'm amazed how little creationists know, sorry, UNDERSTAND about evolution or science in general. I think that everyone on this forum at least should be made to take 2 exams to be able to post:
1. Evolution
2. Creationism/ID or whatever it might be called nowadays.


Would you care to enlighten us poor dumb CREOS by sharing with us how much YOU know about these topics? Start a thread. Dazzle us with your superior insight. Put your money where your mouth is.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:47 AM on June 15, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:47 AM on June 15, 2009 :
I would define "creation science" as science viewed through the "alternate interpretation" of creation.

How is this less valid than science as viewed through the "alternate interpretation" of evolution?




Leaving aside some issues I have with some of what Tiffney wrote, in the bio sciences the theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly for over a hundred years.  In addition, the theory has a great deal of explanatory power, and as such serves as a foundation for further research.

On the other hand, Biblical creation is not a scientific theory, has not been subjected and supported using the scientific method and empirical observation, and provides little to no explanatory power.  Hence, it can't serve as a foundation for scientific research.



(Edited by Mustrum 6/15/2009 at 10:44 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:43 AM on June 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Mustrum at Mon June 15, 2009 - 10:43 AM
Leaving aside some issues I have with some of what Tiffney wrote, in the bio sciences the theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly for over a hundred years.  In addition, the theory has a great deal of explanatory power, and as such serves as a foundation for further research.

Are you referring here to historical evolution or observable evolution?
Contrary to what EVOS tend to believe they are two different things with the same name. (Cheeters!)
Observable evolution, variation within a species or adaptation, is not in question. Change over time occurs. But where it crosses over into the realm of historical evolution it is unobservable, unprovable speculation. "The evidence points to..." depends on what you believe.

On the other hand, Biblical creation is not a scientific theory, has not been subjected and supported using the scientific method and empirical observation, and provides little to no explanatory power.  Hence, it can't serve as a foundation for scientific research.

I agree in the sense that the same holds true with historical evolution. Except for the part about "explanatory power". Either view offers an explanation. One is naturalistic the other is not. How you view the world determines the foundation from which you do everything including scientific endeavors. It can have no effect on empirical evidence one way or the other. Only on interpretation.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:40 PM on June 15, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:40 AM on June 15, 2009 :
Posted by Mustrum at Mon June 15, 2009 - 10:43 AM
Leaving aside some issues I have with some of what Tiffney wrote, in the bio sciences the theory of evolution has been tested repeatedly for over a hundred years.  In addition, the theory has a great deal of explanatory power, and as such serves as a foundation for further research.

Are you referring here to historical evolution or observable evolution?
Contrary to what EVOS tend to believe they are two different things with the same name. (Cheeters!)
Observable evolution, variation within a species or adaptation, is not in question. Change over time occurs. But where it crosses over into the realm of historical evolution it is unobservable, unprovable speculation. "The evidence points to..." depends on what you believe.



A better way, imo, to think about evolution is from the paleontological or genetic stand point.

If you accept that genetic changes do occur, that these changes are inherited by offspring, and that the survivability of the offspring is influenced by the environment, then you've accepted evolution.  

If that is the case, then if you accept an "old Earth" I don't see what there is much to argue about concerning basics.

I'm guessing there is something among those 4 main issues that you don't accept.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:07 PM on June 15, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:40 AM on June 15, 2009 :
I agree in the sense that the same holds true with historical evolution. Except for the part about "explanatory power". Either view offers an explanation.


I was running short on time earlier, so here's a bit more.  :-)

By explanatory power I mean the ability to describe the underlying mechanisms that produce a phenomena.  

So if we are talking about the phylogenetic relationships among organisms, then understanding how things like genetic drift and mutations work helps to explain those relationships.  

On the other hand, saying those relationships are due to a common creator doesn't provide us with any more understanding about the relationships than before we made that assumption.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:09 PM on June 15, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BTW Timbrx I keep expecting you to say something like "evolution my diddly-eye!."  ;-)


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:12 PM on June 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would define "creation science" as science viewed through the "alternate interpretation" of creation.
How is this less valid than science as viewed through the "alternate interpretation" of evolution?


How is it less valid than evolutionary biology??  the same article you reference explains why creation science is less valid, it's not real science it's pseudoscience:

" Pseudo-Science
1. Is an attempt to borrow the clothing of science in order to cloak a message whose content is not based on science
a. How to spot pseudoscience? This is difficult for the non-scientist, but some indicators of pseudoscience include:
— repeated reference to authority rather than to primary observation;
— unwillingness to admit ignorance or to admit that the stated hypothesis is not complete;
— unwillingness to try to disprove own hypothesis or to seek contradictory examples;
— consistent presentation of hypotheses in a simplistic manner, or in non-professional venues where success of the argument is equated with popularity of the presentation;
— failure to add new arguments and data with time, but rather consistent reliance on existing arguments or variants thereon."

Creationism tries to "dress itself up" in scientific jargon without conducting any experiments or accepting any tests that prove it wrong.
It continually uses the bible as it's primary justification and ignores any and all evidence that contradicts it.
Creation science denies any evidence that contradicts it and says it's claims are just as valid as real evidence.
No creationist is willing to try and disprove creationism or accept an alternate theory.
Creationism revels in it's simple minded claims, and tries to dismiss alternate theories with simple minded statements instead of observations, experiments and peer review.

I think the article you linked to aptly demonstrates why "creation science" is not only less valid than real science but totally worthless.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:46 PM on June 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hidilly-ho, Murstrum
Posted by Mustrum at Mon June 15, 2009 - 3:07 PM
A better way, imo, to think about evolution is from the paleontological or genetic stand point.

If you accept that genetic changes do occur, that these changes are inherited by offspring, and that the survivability of the offspring is influenced by the environment, then you've accepted evolution.

All of these things are observable. I do accept "evolution" as the variation and adaptation within a species. What I do not accept is historical trans-genus evolution as this is not observable. The fact that some genetic lines look the same between two separate kinds of animals does not necessarily mean that they share a common ancestor.


I'm guessing there is something among those 4 main issues that you don't accept.

Again, I don't accept historical evolution as valid science.

Posted by Demon38 at Mon June 15, 2009 - 10:46 PM
How is it less valid than evolutionary biology??  the same article you reference explains why creation science is less valid, it's not real science it's pseudoscience:

Than historical evolution is equally pseudoscience.

" Pseudo-Science of historical evolution:
1. Is an attempt to borrow the clothing of science in order to cloak a message whose content is not based on science
a. How to spot pseudoscience? This is difficult for the non-scientist, but some indicators of pseudoscience include:
— repeated reference to authority rather than to primary observation;
— unwillingness to admit ignorance or to admit that the stated hypothesis is not complete;
— unwillingness to try to disprove own hypothesis or to seek contradictory examples;
— consistent presentation of hypotheses in a simplistic manner, or in non-professional venues where success of the argument is equated with popularity of the presentation;
— failure to add new arguments and data with time, but rather consistent reliance on existing arguments or variants thereon."
Historical evolution tries to "dress itself up" in scientific jargon without conducting any experiments or accepting any tests that prove it wrong since it is not possible to test something that supposedly happened in the past.
It continually uses the main stream scientific community as it's primary justification and ignores any and all evidence that contradicts it.
Historical evolution denies any evidence that contradicts it and says it's claims are just as valid as real evidence.
No evolutionist is willing to try and disprove evolution or accept an alternate theory.
Evolutionism revels in it's simple minded claims, and tries to dismiss alternate theories with simple minded statements instead of observations, experiments and peer review.

I think the article I linked to aptly demonstrates why "creation " is equal to "historical evolution" in that both are by their very nature untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable.

I just don't see how you can continue to to claim that "observable" and "historical" (non-observable) evolution are the same thing.





 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:40 PM on June 15, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:40 PM on June 15, 2009 :
Hidilly-ho, Murstrum
Posted by Mustrum at Mon June 15, 2009 - 3:07 PM
A better way, imo, to think about evolution is from the paleontological or genetic stand point.

If you accept that genetic changes do occur, that these changes are inherited by offspring, and that the survivability of the offspring is influenced by the environment, then you've accepted evolution.

All of these things are observable. I do accept "evolution" as the variation and adaptation within a species. What I do not accept is historical trans-genus evolution as this is not observable. The fact that some genetic lines look the same between two separate kinds of animals does not necessarily mean that they share a common ancestor.


I'm guessing there is something among those 4 main issues that you don't accept.

Again, I don't accept historical evolution as valid science.

Posted by Demon38 at Mon June 15, 2009 - 10:46 PM
How is it less valid than evolutionary biology??  the same article you reference explains why creation science is less valid, it's not real science it's pseudoscience:

Than historical evolution is equally pseudoscience.

" Pseudo-Science of historical evolution:
1. Is an attempt to borrow the clothing of science in order to cloak a message whose content is not based on science
a. How to spot pseudoscience? This is difficult for the non-scientist, but some indicators of pseudoscience include:
— repeated reference to authority rather than to primary observation;
— unwillingness to admit ignorance or to admit that the stated hypothesis is not complete;
— unwillingness to try to disprove own hypothesis or to seek contradictory examples;
— consistent presentation of hypotheses in a simplistic manner, or in non-professional venues where success of the argument is equated with popularity of the presentation;
— failure to add new arguments and data with time, but rather consistent reliance on existing arguments or variants thereon."
Historical evolution tries to "dress itself up" in scientific jargon without conducting any experiments or accepting any tests that prove it wrong since it is not possible to test something that supposedly happened in the past.
It continually uses the main stream scientific community as it's primary justification and ignores any and all evidence that contradicts it.
Historical evolution denies any evidence that contradicts it and says it's claims are just as valid as real evidence.
No evolutionist is willing to try and disprove evolution or accept an alternate theory.
Evolutionism revels in it's simple minded claims, and tries to dismiss alternate theories with simple minded statements instead of observations, experiments and peer review.

I think the article I linked to aptly demonstrates why "creation " is equal to "historical evolution" in that both are by their very nature untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable.

I just don't see how you can continue to to claim that "observable" and "historical" (non-observable) evolution are the same thing.








You're taking "observable" far too literally. If in order to confirm a hypothesis we had to literally watch every part of it happen, we hardly accomplish anything in science. Geology, paleontology, and huge swaths of physics and chemistry would have to be thrown out the window as "unobservable."

That isn't how observation works in science. What we observe is the evidence. We can observe a dinosaur footprint, observe a matching skeleton of a foot, and conclude that the skeletal foot is the foot of the kind of dinosaur that created the footprint. Did we observe the dinosaur leave its footprint? Of course not, but we don't have to because we used the evidence we can observe to test our conclusion by comparing the observations.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:46 AM on June 16, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the article I linked to aptly demonstrates why "creation " is equal to "historical evolution" in that both are by their very nature untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable.

Utter nonsense, guess that's why you're a creationist.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:49 AM on June 16, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All of these things are observable. I do accept "evolution" as the variation and adaptation within a species. What I do not accept is historical trans-genus evolution as this is not observable. The fact that some genetic lines look the same between two separate kinds of animals does not necessarily mean that they share a common ancestor.


In that sense, how do you explain ERV's, they span over a lot of virusses and are able to be traced back quite a long way to link together many different species.

I mean, that's unbelievably solid evidence, how does creationism explain that?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 07:02 AM on June 16, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:05 AM on June 9, 2009 :
What's the problem Zucadragon -is there some forum rule I'm contravening here? Is encouragement not allowed? And what makes it paternal as opposed to congenial and friendly? Not 'scientific' enough for you huh? Why don't you just chill out and try be a human.You're sounding rather paternal yourself now that I think of it.

As for the rest of the pompous drivel - evolution is imaginary hogwash not science, not demonstrable, not repeatable, not even common sense -a desperate delusion. I haven't seen anything from evolutionists but their interpretations of evidence based on the presumption of naturalism which means a biased interpretation not based on fact but on fictitious philisophical imaginings to the exclusion of any other possible interpretation.
It's like saying two people could have done the crime but we prefer to believe that it is the one (natural processes)and refuse to entertain the possibility that it is the other (intelligent supernatural designer) - so on that biased assumption, we invent all our plausible stories and then present them as FACT.

To take it one step further, just in case you don't get it -either there is a God or there isn't -evolutionists assume there isn't one (or at least not one that did anything) and then assume that they're right and then make up all their inventive stories about how everything came from nothing and made itself and then they wonder why we don't believe them.


A blind man may call people stupid for thinking there is something to see. Creationists are blind to the evidence, they don't do any science, they don't do any research.

They just close their eyes and go "there's nothing to see here, nothing at all"

Shit, it's nearly frustrating, this is the kind of behavior I had as a child, I'd hold a cookie behind my back and my mom would go "are you stealing a cookie?"

And I'd be going no, of course not, and I'd get so riled up in saying no, that I'd get irrationally angry at my mom for it.

Of course I was wrong, and so are you.

Just a look at the free articles on Pubmed gives you tons and tons of research on evolutionary subjects that are all repeatable, testable, falsifiable.

The delusion is your willfull ignorance, your inability to actually go out and do some research. Even your local library or university should have a ton of information, a ton of studies on the topics involved.

But I'm guessing you won't go out and do your own research, you've made up your mind.
That in turn makes me pity you a bit, wherever in life, I feel I owe it to myself to research what I talk about, so I make the least amount of mistakes possible, but on top of that, I accept it when I'm wrong and people show me when I'm wrong.

In comparison to that, you're just a pitifull being, unable to test your own faith, your own beliefs, your own thoughts. You are only human after all.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 07:12 AM on June 16, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by EntwickelnCollin at Tue June 16, 2009 - 12:46 AM
You're taking "observable" far too literally. If in order to confirm a hypothesis we had to literally watch every part of it happen, we hardly accomplish anything in science. Geology, paleontology, and huge swaths of physics and chemistry would have to be thrown out the window as "unobservable."

That isn't how observation works in science. What we observe is the evidence. We can observe a dinosaur footprint, observe a matching skeleton of a foot, and conclude that the skeletal foot is the foot of the kind of dinosaur that created the footprint. Did we observe the dinosaur leave its footprint? Of course not, but we don't have to because we used the evidence we can observe to test our conclusion by comparing the observations.


I believe that this is exactly the point of the Tiffney article. In his field of paleontology since you can't go back in time you must draw conclusions from the evidence. But the caveat is that he must be open to other interpretations. A paleontologist must draw a balance between "belief knowledge" and "research knowledge" and adjust interpretations to include new evidences.

I see the evidence for a creator abounding. You see the same evidence and attribute it to some natural process. We both must find a balance between "belief knowledge" and "research knowledge".

Posted by Demon38 at Tue June 16, 2009 - 06:49 AM

I think the article I linked to aptly demonstrates why "creation " is equal to "historical evolution" in that both are by their very nature untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable.


Utter nonsense, guess that's why you're a creationist.

Congratulations Deamon on being a stereotypical EVO. Don't address the FACT that "historical evolution" is no more science than "creationism". Just dismiss it as "utter nonsense". Your logic is undefinable.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:39 AM on June 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:39 AM on June 16, 2009 :


I believe that this is exactly the point of the Tiffney article. In his field of paleontology since you can't go back in time you must draw conclusions from the evidence. But the caveat is that he must be open to other interpretations. A paleontologist must draw a balance between "belief knowledge" and "research knowledge" and adjust interpretations to include new evidences.

I see the evidence for a creator abounding. You see the same evidence and attribute it to some natural process. We both must find a balance between "belief knowledge" and "research knowledge".


Do you consider cladistics to be totally fictitious?

How do you explain the nearly perfect correlation between genetic results and taxonomic results?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:25 AM on June 16, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like there is  no way either side is going to "prove without a doubt" their assertions. Possible reason for this is that God is leaving the door ajar for only faith allowed to get in. But I do believe in intelligent design and not that life started from primordial "soup", just a bit too far fetched for me and all the efforts to create life in a test tube.
Like I said, DNA is a code that represents something other than itself and can be decoded to allow organisms to replicate themselves. For whence does this coded information come from?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:50 PM on June 16, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA is most likely evolved from RNA, and scientists have already demonstrated that certain vesicles can be made naturally with in early Earth environments which can hold RNA and self replicate. Not to mention that a little while ago scientists have also made the pyrimidines (U and C) of RNA.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:03 PM on June 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you explain the nearly perfect correlation between genetic results and taxonomic results?


And how do you explain the fact that you're repeating garbage and don't even know it? There's no such thing as any near perfect correlation between genetic results and taxonomic results. Genetic results produce a vast number of confusing and inconsistent results with a whole lot of new and interesting family trees that leave evolutionists in more of a quandry than when there were no genetic results to upset their imaginative abilities.

Why is it that the eye of man and octupus are very similar?
Why is man's heart so similar to pig's?
Why is the concentration of red blood cells in man and fish very similar?
Why would the specific gravity of the blood of man and frog be very similar?
Why would the structure of haemoglobin of man and root nodules be very similar?
Why when you look at cytochrome C are man and sunflower so very similar but mold and sunflower are very dissimilar?
The jawless fish are supposed to be very ancient early vertebrates but how do they compare with other vertebrates in blood protein comparisons? They should be closest to carp, frogs, chicken, kangaroo and then humans in that order yet it is closest in haemoglobin similarities to humans, carp, kangaroo, frog and chicken -in that order.

If DNA shows complexity (it should if evolution is true) than why do humans have 46 chromosomes while cosmarium, a simple algae has as many as 140 and radiolaria, a simple protozoa has over 800?

Why is it that evolutionists will only show us the very few genetic comparisons that vaguely back up their vain imaginings while the majority of the data that contradicts them is pushed under the carpet?

Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British museum and an expert in fossils said on Nov 5, 1981, in an address given at the American museum of Natural history, that he regretted having to speak on the topic 'Creation and Evolution' for he said that he had become so puzzled over his findings that after 20 years of evolutionary research, he was unable to come up with even one thing that convinced him that evolution was true. When he asked other leading evolutionists they told him glibly that 'it's just convergence; convergence is everywhere." as if that answered the evolutionary problem.Different creatures totally unrelated to one another, which are said to be related to one another. He said that the problem is solved by calling it 'merely another form of evolution' whereby a disproof is magically turned into a proof.
He concluded his speech by saying that evolution was an 'anti-theory' that produced 'anti-knowledge' and elaborated on it by saying that evolution is full of special words that explain nothing, yet give the impression that they explain everything.

The way Colin Patterson felt in 1981 is the way I feel right now. Evolutionists are living in the land of Oz making stories out of nothing at all and ignoring abundant data that just doesn't fit.    


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:29 AM on June 17, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So erm, where is this "science" that has been pushed under the rug ?

All I see are questions of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
And that someone (you) seems to think there's a ton of science that doesn't correlate with evolutionary theory.

So bring it, and this time, do it scientifically, don't go "why is this or that or this" but try to explain why you do or don't think something is explained by evolutionary theory.

Kind of like you did with the DNA one:

If DNA shows complexity (it should if evolution is true) than why do humans have 46 chromosomes while cosmarium, a simple algae has as many as 140 and radiolaria, a simple protozoa has over 800?


Sadly enough, this just shows your ignorance, the amount of chromosomes is no measurement for complexity at all. Nowhere in the scientific literature is any mention of complexity mentioned by the amount of chromosomes.

So your argument is a straw man, Not Applicable, wishfull thinking, etc etc.

If you don't agree, show me where "scientists" think that chromosomes somehow measure "complexity" and you might have case.

And the rest is just an argument from authority. This guy said this, and he has these credentials, thus he isn't wrong.

Which makes no sense, because even you only accept people with credentials that believe the same as you, any others (like the majority of scientists in the world, the far far majority) apparantly have nothing to say.

Biased much?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:55 AM on June 17, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Zucadragon at Wed June 17, 2009 - 09:55 AM
So erm, where is this "science" that has been pushed under the rug ?

Didn't you read the post? I did. It looks to me like Lester gave quite a few examples here of "science" that has been "pushed under the rug". Science is knowledge. Picking one example of "similarity" out of more numerous dissimilar examples because it fits your hypothesis is sweeping the other non conforming knowledge under the rug.

All I see are questions of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

No bias here.
And that someone (you) seems to think there's a ton of science that doesn't correlate with evolutionary theory.

There is. There is not a ton of scientists willing to jeopardize their career by emphasizing them in research.

So bring it, and this time, do it scientifically, don't go "why is this or that or this" but try to explain why you do or don't think something is explained by evolutionary theory.

After all, only EVOS are smart enough to ask questions without supporting documentation.

Kind of like you did with the DNA one:

If DNA shows complexity (it should if evolution is true) than why do humans have 46 chromosomes while cosmarium, a simple algae has as many as 140 and radiolaria, a simple protozoa has over 800?

The science is in the question. The interpretation differs.


Sadly enough, this just shows your ignorance, the amount of chromosomes is no measurement for complexity at all. Nowhere in the scientific literature is any mention of complexity mentioned by the amount of chromosomes.

Of course not. That would undermine evolution. The EVOS logic is:
Since humans are more complex than algae, and since humans have fewer chromosomes, than chromosome numbers can't indicate for complexity.
The problem with this logic lies in the complexity of the chromosomes themselves. Genetically speaking algae are far more complex than humans. Tough pill to swallow when your mouth is full of EVO garbage.

So your argument is a straw man, Not Applicable, wishfull thinking, etc etc.

Nyah Nyah! Strawman! I don't have to listen!

I would have to imagine that EVO'S don't think that the (American in particular) news media is biased. If it were than who could know how biased any disseminator if information might be. Personally I don't see much difference between "Scientific America" and "Associated Press".
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:52 PM on June 17, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While we're at it...
For whence does this coded DNA information come from?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:39 PM on June 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ZUCADRAGON  Sadly enough, this just shows your ignorance, the amount of chromosomes is no measurement for complexity at all. Nowhere in the scientific literature is any mention of complexity mentioned by the amount of chromosomes.


TIMBRX  Since humans are more complex than algae, and since humans have fewer chromosomes, than chromosome numbers can't indicate for complexity.


Precisely! Thank-you Timbrx for showing us all that stupid creos can see what 'super clever' evos ignore even when it is slapping them in the face. If it doesn't fit, ignore it. Well I can assure you that if chromosome numbers correlated in any way with supposed evolutionary complexity, it would be the definitive proof being waved in our faces daily. Sadly that is not the case so evos invent reasons why it is not so; reasons satisfying only to evos (who are clearly easily satsified.)

Apoapsis
How do you explain the nearly perfect correlation between genetic results and taxonomic results?


I still want to know how it is that every evo appears to believe that, even though it is not true? Could it be that it is repeated ad nauseum by confident non-molecular biologist evos everywhere? How long will it take before it becomes generally apparent that this is just another imaginative deviation from the truth?
I've heard Richard Dawkins say that comparing genetic data with evolutionary theory is just like reading a book, so beautiful and so clear, so obvious.

But it is not even true. Truelly diabolical, but not true in any real evidential sense.

And yes, while we're at it - From whence did the coded information come?




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:52 AM on June 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Once again we have examples or Creationists who don't back up their statements with any concreate references to credible research.  In other cases they resort to misquoting reputable scientiets.  Let's look at some of the issues brought up by Lester.

Apoapsis
How do you explain the nearly perfect correlation between genetic results and taxonomic results?




I still want to know how it is that every evo appears to believe that, even though it is not true? Could it be that it is repeated ad nauseum by confident non-molecular biologist evos everywhere? How long will it take before it becomes generally apparent that this is just another imaginative deviation from the truth?


From the source that I have read, Apoapsis is correct - molecular research does support taxonomy and the fossil record.

From Here:
Analysis Finds Strong Match Between Molecular, Fossil Data In Evolutionary Studies
Scientists using molecular techniques assert that genetics more accurately determines evolutionary relationships than does a comparison of physical characteristics preserved in fossils. But how inaccurate, really, were the fossils? Jablonski and the University of Michigan's John A. Finarelli have published the first quantitative assessment of these assumed discrepancies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

They compared the molecular data to data based on the kinds of features used to distinguish fossil lineages for 228 mammal and 197 mollusk lineages at the genus level (both wolves and dogs belong to the genus Canis, for example).

No matter how they looked at it, the lineages defined by their fossil forms "showed an imperfect but very good fit to the molecular data," Jablonski said. The fits were generally far better than random. The few exceptions included freshwater clams, "a complete disaster," he said.

Jablonski and Finarelli (Ph.D.'07, University of Chicago), then decided to push their luck. They looked at the fits again, but this time focused on geographic range and body size. The result: a "spectacularly robust" match between the fossil and molecular data.


Lester - do you care to show us any credible scientific source backing up your claim that molecular research doesn't support evolution?  If you can't do that, then your statements are nothing but hot air.

On the issue of chromosome numbers.  PZ Myers addresses this issue in the following (call it Chromosome 101 class for beginners):

Basics:  How can chromosome numbers change?

Here's a good quote from PZ Myers relating to the way Creationists approach the Evolutionary debate, which I think is accurate:

ignorance is not a problem, but stupidly using your ignorance to push invalid ideas is.

From whence did the coded information come?


In reference to DNA, Creationists think it comes from God.  Evolutionsists think it arises through natural causes through the process of Natural Selection.  



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:44 AM on June 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll get back to you about the rest of this topic Orion but in the meantime
In reference to DNA, Creationists think it comes from God.  Evolutionsists think it arises through natural causes through the process of Natural Selection.


Except that you need a self replicator before you can start to have natural selection playing a part so with what did this self replicator replicate?  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:02 AM on June 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the source that I have read, Apoapsis is correct - molecular research does support taxonomy and the fossil record.


1.The only way to construct an evolutionary tree from molecules in living organisms is to assume that evolution is true and then fit the data into a branching evolutionary tree pattern.
2. Darwinists have to construct hypotheses about the past from molecular data found only in living organisms.
3. Molecular studies have failed to produce a consistent evolutionary tree and the more molecules scientists analyze, the more elusive the tree becomes.
"Different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradictory inferences with absolute support." Evolutionary biologists Antonis Rokas, Dirk Kruger and Sean B. Carroll 2005

Molecular phylogeny compares DNA, RNA and protein subunits and uses these sequences to infer evolutionary relationships. So those that differ by only a few subunits are assumed to be more closely related in evo terms those that differ by many subunits. This of course would be much easier to quantify than trying to quantify the degree of similarity between fish and humans (-how does one assign a number to a shape?)

As an example of the problems that are faced:

In the 1990's molecular studies concluded that the closest living relatives to whales are hippos even though on morpholgical grounds, hippos seem more closely related to even toed hooved mammals such as pigs and camels.
UNY Biologists Maureen A. O'Leary and Jonathan H. Geisler examined 123 morphological characteristics from 10 living and 30 extinct species and concluded that whales are probably descended from mesonychians and that the 'whippo' hypotheses is false.
In 2001 ankle bone analyses in several newly discovered fossils brought the conclusion that whales are more closely related to living even -toed hoofed mammals than they are to mesonychians. In commentaries accompanying the report it was noted that the new results contradict the previous hypotheses of both paleontologists and molecular biologists. In particular removing mesonychians from the picture means skull and tooth features that whales share with them had to be the result of "convergent evolution".
But convergent evolution is a term Darwinists use for similarities not thought to be due to common ancestry, how can we know when they are not due to common ancestry.

Similarities from fossils originally suggested that hippos are the evolutionary sisters of pigs and camels but far removed from whales. Similarities in molecules now suggest that hippos are evo sisters of whales but far removed from pig and camels -and that the fossil similarities on which Darwinists originally relied were never evidence for common ancestry after all. If the original fossil similarities were not evidence for common ancestry, how do we know that the molecular similarities are? Why should we trust either hypothesis?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:02 AM on June 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:02 AM on June 18, 2009 :
I'll get back to you about the rest of this topic Orion but in the meantime
In reference to DNA, Creationists think it comes from God.  Evolutionsists think it arises through natural causes through the process of Natural Selection.


Except that you need a self replicator before you can start to have natural selection playing a part so with what did this self replicator replicate?  




Well Lester, that is a good question.  But that question deals with prebiotic chemistry - abiogenesis.  If you read the articles posted in the 'Abiogenesis Research' thread you'll see that there is a plausible natural process.  

Here is a video put together by Dr. Szostak (of Harvard) explaining a plausible pathway for prebiotic chemistry on the early earth.

from here:
Origin of Life Model

Progress is being made in the field.  It makes sense to me.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:17 PM on June 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

If you read the articles posted in the 'Abiogenesis Research' thread you'll see that there is a plausible natural process.


Sorry can't download that Orion -my system is too slow but if I may comment on the 'plausible natural process' idea. I understand that plausible mechanisms may come up but all the plausible pathways are strongly imaginary in the absence of observable evidence.

I have a plausible pathway too -and that is that God created the original 'kinds' fully formed with a great deal of variability in their genomes in order that they might survive different environments. Does the evidence support it? I believe that it does and my belief that it does has everything to do with the observable evidence. No-one has ever observed trans- species change. Selective breeding (eg. dogs) and mutation experimentation (eg. fruit flies) fail to show that the species barrier can be crossed  even with hundreds of generations and accelerated mutations. The fossil record shows the sudden appearance and disappearance and general stasis of every species living and extinct and gives us no genuine reason to believe that the barrier of 'kind' has ever been breached. If it happened in the past, why isn't it happening now? If new organs evolved, if new features evolved, why are none evolving now? To believe what you believe takes every bit as much faith as it takes for me to believe that a creative intelligence provided the matter, the time, the energy and the coded information Since matter is neither created nor destroyed, there must have been a time when all matter and energy was created. Since the second law of thermodynamics shows a general energy decay called 'entropy' going on in the system and since all systems tend toward the most mathematically probable state and eventually become totally random and disorganized, it seems that apart from a higher power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.
A belief in evolution goes against this principle and as such it is an outlaw theory. Regardless of the excuses of evolutionists, the second law rises above the foibles and errors of mankind and will not be overthrown. Only a power outside of all matter and energy could overrule the second law.

Ultimately what this boils down to is that your plausible is less plausible than my plausible and as such my plausible should not be discounted from the possibilities just because men have decided that all 'science' need be naturalistic in order to be true.        





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:33 AM on June 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:47 AM on June 15, 2009 :
I see the EVOS fan club is alive and well.


Ah, Timbrx.  Curious as to why you never replied in the vestigial thread, etc...

Easier to whine about the meanies, I suppose.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:04 PM on June 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Are you referring here to historical evolution or observable evolution?
Contrary to what EVOS tend to believe they are two different things with the same name. (Cheeters!)
Observable evolution, variation within a species or adaptation, is not in question. Change over time occurs. But where it crosses over into the realm of historical evolution it is unobservable, unprovable speculation. "The evidence points to..." depends on what you believe.
Our (tested) "beliefs" are quite simple. You know them.

We're still trying to know yours.

Do you or don't you believe that all felines come from two animals in the ark?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:39 PM on June 19, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Observable evolution, variation within a species or adaptation, is not in question.

Except we see NEW species arise, so macroevolution is not in question either.  So why can't we extend it into the past.  We know life existed in the past, we know life had DNA, we know that DNA in the past mutated, we know natural selection worked in the past, we know life changed in the past.  Therefore, we know evolution worked in the past.  Case closed.  You creationists like to ignore the obvious.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:19 PM on June 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood -have you nothing to say about the conversation at hand?

Demon38

Except we see NEW species arise, so macroevolution is not in question either.


Like I've said before, show me your new species and we can decide whether it's a new kind or not. This is all about man's terminology -when you mutate fruit flies for a very long time -does something else arise or just a messed up fruitfly?
Is there a barrier through which we may not pass? Can a fish turn into an amphibian or is that just a belief based on a philisophical prejudice? Can you justify this belief? How about some evidence to show us that genetic mutations ever produce something new or better. Don't just assume it -show us the real deal.
I can also line up a whole bunch of knives that have similarities and then tell you that one evolved from the other -similarities could be the sign of an intelligent design rather than a common ancestor. That's why you must produce the evidence to confirm your philosophical prejudice.

We know life existed in the past, we know life had DNA, we know that DNA in the past mutated


Existed yes, as today; had DNA, yes, just like today. Mutated yes but mutations are like spelling mistakes. Mutations demonstrate the second law of thermodynamics -everything is breaking down. Do you want to have some x-ray doses to help you mutate? Would you expose your children to them? It's onward and upwards all the way according to evolutionists, so why not. As for me, I don't want spelling mistakes in my genome nor in my kids, so I won't be going for x-ray therapy anytime soon. You should put your money where your mouth is.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:23 AM on June 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Like I've said before, show me your new species and we can decide whether it's a new kind or not. This is all about man's terminology -when you mutate fruit flies for a very long time -does something else arise or just a messed up fruitfly?

Like I said, you don't understand what a species is.  When you mutate a fruit fly you get a mutated fruit fly.  Individuals don't become new species, populations do.  Until you understand what a species is and until you can define "kind" in any meaningful way, your claims aren't valid, you don't know what you're talking about.

Is there a barrier through which we may not pass? Can a fish turn into an amphibian or is that just a belief based on a philisophical prejudice?

How do you define "amphibian"?  Is it a fish with lungs?  Is it a slamander with gills?  We see both  already, so there is no barrier between fish and amphibian.  So I don't know what you're talking about when you say "philisophical predudice.  We physically see fish with lungs so yes, a fish can turn into an amphibian.  What more do you need?

Can you justify this belief?

Not a belief, since we already see animals that cross the barrier YOU defined, it';s a fact.

With Tiktaalik we see how fins can turn into arms.  Again, what more do you want?

Existed yes, as today; had DNA, yes, just like today. Mutated yes but mutations are like spelling mistakes

No there not, they are new chemical reactions.
That can and have made organisms more fit.

Mutations demonstrate the second law of thermodynamics -everything is breaking
down.


Sorry, that's NOT the second law of thermodynamics.  Thermodynamics deals with heat distribution, not with things breaking down.  Go ahead, look it up.  Are you trying to tell me that the 2LOT prevents complexity from arising???  Don't be absurd!

Do you want to have some x-ray doses to help you mutate?

I've had plenty of X-rays and I haven't mutated yet!

Would you expose your children to
them?


Since my daughter has been to the dentist, she already has.  

It's onward and upwards all the way according to evolutionists, so why not.

Ha ha ha, no it's not.  You still don't understand evolution.

As for me, I don't want spelling mistakes in my genome nor in my kids

Too late, you already have a hundred or so mutations already.  According to you, you shouldn't have any!

You should put your money where your mouth is.

Already have, what do X-rays have to do with evolution?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:47 AM on June 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wait a minute, Lester, you don't think X-rays and other forms of radiation are the only causes of mutation, do you?!?!?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:49 AM on June 20, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:29 AM on June 17, 2009 :


And how do you explain the fact that you're repeating garbage and don't even know it?


Go ahead, ignore the facts.

Why is it that the eye of man and octupus are very similar?

They are actually quite different, the cephalopod eyes have a much superior design to human eyes.  Check it out.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:24 AM on June 20, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:23 AM on June 20, 2009 :
when you mutate fruit flies for a very long time -does something else arise or just a messed up fruitfly?


As before you get a mutated fruit fly, some with unique characteristics. One species of fruit fly evolved into two separate species in the lab. One of the new species was able to withstand temperatures 10 degrees Celsius colder than the parent or the daughter species.  

Is there a barrier through which we may not pass?


Nope, God didn't put a barrier on how far any organisms DNA can evolve.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 4:18 PM on June 20, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 08:44 AM on June 18, 2009 :

In reference to DNA, Creationists think it comes from God.  Evolutionsists think it arises through natural causes through the process of Natural Selection.  



Try to show me one case where coded information did not come from a mind.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:29 PM on June 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Try to show me one case where coded information did not come from a mind.

Define "coded information".  Is a beehive coded information, that didn't come from a mind.  Is the alignment of iron particles in a rock coded iformation, that didn't come from a mind.  there's 2 cases instead of one.
And DNA isn't a code, there's no symbolism, the message isn't seperate from the material, it's chemicals reacting.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:37 PM on June 20, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 6:29 PM on June 20, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 08:44 AM on June 18, 2009 :

In reference to DNA, Creationists think it comes from God.  Evolutionsists think it arises through natural causes through the process of Natural Selection.  



Try to show me one case where coded information did not come from a mind.





DNA.

You guys still don't seem able to wrap your heads around the fallacy you're committing. Even if all "coded information" we know about before coming across DNA is in fact created by a mind, that is no reason to think DNA was also created by a mind. It is after all a part of nature, and we have never seen any evidence to suggest that anything in nature is influenced by a mind of any kind. The entire argument that DNA is a code generated by an intelligence is nothing but circular reasoning.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 6/21/2009 at 12:08 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:07 AM on June 21, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 15 16 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.