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
     Logical Falacies in Evolution
       Some problems with the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That post was for you, derwood. xD


-------
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: 3:12 PM on February 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 2:18 PM on February 1, 2010 :
derwood
I know that you are desperately trying to save face here, and in your favor, I cannot locate the original post in which you dismissed their study by claiming they were just darwinists trying to dismiss contrary views.  But this does not mean that you never said it (I will find it one day), and this whole 'in your head' thing is just a bluff as best I can tell.
Derwood, you quoted Lester directly from my post, where i took good care linking to his original post.

Here it is:

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=46248&page=4

He's just lying now.

When you want to find something specific google this:

"whatever you want to find" site:www.youdebate.com

That's how i do it.



Ya, that is how I found that as well, but I thought I remembered him dismissing them earleir than that...

Not that it matters - what is 'in his head' is pure fantasy premised on his biases and bigotry.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:32 AM on February 2, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I've never seen you present any actual evidence.



Probably because your view of what evidence actually is is so flawed that it makes your entire argument too pathetic to even be considered.  If he posted more links from random internet sites would he then be considered correct?  No, because if half the internet itself was proof, you guys would blindly deny that because you can't see past your own foolish pride.


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 03:22 AM on February 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Probably because your view of what evidence actually is is so flawed that it makes your entire argument too pathetic to even be considered.
By whom?

And you don't know the first thing about Science. So how would you know how flawed it is?
If he posted more links from random internet sites would he then be considered correct?  No, because if half the internet itself was proof, you guys would blindly deny that because you can't see past your own foolish pride.
Blah blah blah blah blah.

Present your evidence or go back to your hiding place.



-------
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: 03:29 AM on February 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 03:22 AM on February 10, 2010 :
Probably because your view of what evidence actually is is so flawed that it makes your entire argument too pathetic to even be considered.


Please explain to us EXACTLY what evidence is.



-------
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: 07:12 AM on February 10, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 1:12 PM on February 10, 2010 :
Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 03:22 AM on February 10, 2010 :
Probably because your view of what evidence actually is is so flawed that it makes your entire argument too pathetic to even be considered.


Please explain to us EXACTLY what evidence is.



Quite obviously evidence is anything that supports young earth cretinism and NOT anything that might support evolutionism



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:48 AM on February 10, 2010 | IP
cowgirl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apassionate has a very valid point.  Evolution theories are not logical.  It is important to note that logic needs no references to support it as it stands on its own.  

Logic is a means to look at a subject and determine validity of that subject based on whether its tenets are reasonable or not.  With respect to evolution they are not.

Evolutionists, who regard themselves as the epitome of intelligence and knowledge place a rediculous burden of proof on the creationist.  Any quote garnered from a creationist site is immediately pooh poohed for that reason and that reason alone.  Why shouldn't evolutionists receive the same treatment when they quote scientific sites?  

Site references actually get one nowhere.  The other side seeks to discredit the reference and offer references with no more validity.  And so it goes until one realizes the posters are not debating but rather those they quote.  

Logically, life evolving from the simplest forms that reproduce by splitting to life that reproduces sexually and that all randomly is not logical as it calls into question odds that are obviously prohibitive.  


-------
I have the sense of the common cow which knows how to eat the grass and spit out the cockleburrs.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 7:26 PM on February 17, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from cowgirl at 11:26 AM on February 18, 2010 :
apassionate has a very valid point.


Only for those who do not understand science or the ToE.

Evolution theories are not logical.  


How are they not, you can claim anything you like but unless you support this it is baseless and not worthy of consideration.

It is important to note that logic needs no references to support it as it stands on its own.  


True, but creationists use logical fallacies as their logical argument.

Logic is a means to look at a subject and determine validity of that subject based on whether its tenets are reasonable or not.  With respect to evolution they are not.


Why not? Please support this claim.

Evolutionists, who regard themselves as the epitome of intelligence and knowledge place a rediculous burden of proof on the creationist.


Evoluion theory has mountains of evidence. Hypotheses are presented, tested and accepted or refuted. Creationists have no testable theory and therefore to be considered alongside a tested theory there is an implied burden of proof. Creationists only believe this is unreasonable because they know they have nothing to present that will stand up to scientific testing.

Any quote garnered from a creationist site is mmediately pooh poohed for that reason and that reason alone.  


Because they are propoganda websites, they are opinions stated as fact. They are unsubstantiated and use the bible as evidence for itself.

Why shouldn't evolutionists receive the same treatment when they quote scientific sites?  


Because they do not undergo the same peer review system, they are untested claims.

Site references actually get one nowhere.  The other side seeks to discredit the reference and offer references with no more validity.  And so it goes until one realizes the posters are not debating but rather those they quote.  


And what qualifications and evidence do you have that you did not take from a creation propoganda website? Most of us do not work in the field and certainly do not study biology, geology, palaentology and the many other related field sof science to be able to produce original studies in each area. We rely on experts in the fields.

Logically, life evolving from the simplest forms that reproduce by splitting to life that reproduces sexually and that all randomly is not logical as it calls into question odds that are obviously prohibitive.  


If I gave you 1 billion dice and asked you to roll exactly 75,856 3s and 486,284 4s, would it be impossible for you to roll them on the first attempt? Improbable does not equal impossible. Also, creationists do not view the odds correctly, we know that there are copying errors every time an organism reproduces. Why then is it unlikely that organisms will change?

(Edited by firechild 2/17/2010 at 8:19 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:17 PM on February 17, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from cowgirl at 7:26 PM on February 17, 2010 :
 Any quote garnered from a creationist site is immediately pooh poohed for that reason and that reason alone.


Not so, here's a quote from a YEC blog that I have few quibbles with:

The evidence for evolution
Since my original post on The Truth about Evolution, I'd say the biggest issue that has come up is what this evidence for evolution actually is. I've heard people casually dismiss me as ignorant and uninformed. Sure, I can see that. I've only done graduate studies in evolutionary biology, wrote a dissertation on protein evolution, worked and published in the field of comparative and evolutionary genomics, taught "History of Life" for three years, and irregularly attended SMBE and SSB conferences for the last twelve years. What could I possibly know about evolution?

Others have insisted that I have an obligation to disclose this evidence. Still others seem to be genuinely at a loss as to what evidence I'm talking about. So here goes. At long last, this is my final response to all those requests:

I'm not going to give you the evidence. Here's why: First, I'm a creationist and this is supposed to be a creationist blog. Why should I write a series of posts explaining evidence for evolution? Second, there are plenty of adequate summaries of the evidence for evolution. Shoot, Origin's still plenty compelling. Third, I think most of the people asking for this evidence are just trying to bait me into a debate. Let's face it, if they don't know what the evidence is already, then they must have chosen to ignore or dispute the many summaries of this evidence that are already out there. So why would I want to get into a big argument with a fellow creationist over the evidence for evolution? That would be silly.

So that's that. Go read Origin. I've got bigger fish to fry.




-------
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: 12:14 AM on February 18, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from cowgirl at 7:26 PM on February 17, 2010 :
apassionate has a very valid point.  Evolution theories are not logical.  It is important to note that logic needs no references to support it as it stands on its own.  


Can you provide a logical statement that would indicate that whatever your preferred position on origins meets your own criterion?



Logic is a means to look at a subject and determine validity of that subject based on whether its tenets are reasonable or not.  With respect to evolution they are not.


So you assert. Care to expand?

Of course, it is possible, using formal logic, to set up a condition in which all statements conform to logic but are clearly ludicous.

Evolutionists, who regard themselves as the epitome of intelligence and knowledge place a rediculous burden of proof on the creationist.  


What is so rediculous[sic] about asking the creationist to provide the same level of evidence for their claims that they demand of us?

And I suggest you read some of the egotistical garbage written by creationists like Lester and Timbrx before you paint with your broad brush (a logical fallacy, by the way).
Any quote garnered from a creationist site is immediately pooh poohed for that reason and that reason alone.  

And with good reason -
Creationist authors have a fairly well documented history of demolsihing and otherwise disregarding facts and truth in their writings.

Here is a prime example from another forum:

***

In this thread, gene duplication was presented as a means by which non-intelligent intervention can increase genetic information.

Mellotron countered with one of his patented long quotes from YEC Jerry Bergman (italics and bolds (except for the title) mine):
Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?
by Jerry Bergman

....The proposition that large scale evolution has occurred via gene duplication is contradicted by numerous lines of evidence. Little evidence currently exists to support the belief that gene duplication is a significant source of new genes, supporting one University of South Carolina molecular evolutionist’s conclusion that scientists can not ‘prove that [genome duplication] didn’t happen, but [if it did], it didn’t have a major impact. … For me, it’s a dead issue’. (Ref 10)

...
According to Hughes, ‘Everything we’ve looked at [fails to] support the hypothesis.’ (39)

Darwinists promote gene duplication as an important means of evolution, not because of the evidence, but because they see no other viable mechanism to produce the required large number of new functional genes to turn a microbe into a microbiologist.

In other words, evolution by gene-duplication is yet another example of just-so story-telling.

Refs:

(10) Pennisi, E., Gene duplications: the stuff of evolution? Science v294: page2458, 2001.

(30) Behe, M.J. and Snoke, D.W., Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, Protein Science 13:2651–2664, 2004; p. 2652.

(39) Pennisi, ref. 1, p. 2460.

So, I read Bergman's article, and I decided to check one of his sources, Googling this article:

Pennisi, E., Gene duplications: the stuff of evolution? Science v294: page2458, 2001.


And darn it if the returns I got were to THIS article:
Science 21 December 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5551, pp. 2458 - 2460
DOI: 10.1126/science.294.5551.2458

News Focus

MOLECULAR EVOLUTION:
Genome Duplications: The Stuff of Evolution?

Elizabeth Pennisi The controversial--and formerly unprovable--proposition that evolution moves forward through duplication of entire genomes is getting support from current advances in molecular biology. The emerging data have not persuaded all of the skeptics, however. They maintain that evolutionary change could have been fueled by duplication of individual genes or perhaps segments of chromosomes--without invoking anything as dramatic as genome duplications.

Note what I underlined -

FIRST - Bergman misrepresents the title - in the Bergman article, in his references, the word "Gene" is in italics, while the rest of the title is not. Interesting...

SECOND - read the abstract. Not only is the article not even really about gene duplications as such, but rather GENOME duplications, the abstract actually indicates that GENE DUPLICATIONS are more likley a cause of evolution!

THIRD - Mellotron, who had originally referred to the Bergman article, claimed that Bergman's manipulation of the title was a mere "typo" of a mere 2 letters, and that my poinitng this out was due to my bias against Bergman (I admit, I am biased against any person with a well documented history of lying about and/or misrepresenting all manner of things related to evolution).

THE QUESTION:


Do any creationists truly believe:

1. That Bergman's 'error' was a mere typo

2. That Bergman correctly represented the content of the article (judging by the abstract, anyway)

3. Mellotron is not merely engaging in obfuscation to protect one of his YEC hero-sources?

Thanks

p.s. - I should point out that Bergman also claims that Down syndrome is caused by a gene duplication, but it is caused by an extra chromosome....

p.p.s - I should also point out that the above article was the only one I actually checked...
***

Jerry Bergman is a prolific creationist writer whose work appears on dozens of creationist websites, where his 'six earned degrees' are flaunted as 'proof' that his every utterance is unassailable, yet here he is using an article on genome duplication to argue against gene duplication and altering the title of the article to make it seem relevant.

One of HUNDREDS of examples.

Being skeptical of creationist claims is a documtably supportable position to take, it is not illogical.  It is sensible.

Why shouldn't evolutionists receive the same treatment when they quote scientific sites?  


We do.

In fact, in my experience, creationists generally just ignore such quotes.

Of course, an unbiased reader will see that evolutionists typically do not rely exclusively on quotes, whereas many creationists do.  This leaves them in the position of having to defend not the information they present, but their hero from whom they quoted the nonsensical material.  Because lets face it - YECs typically do not even understand the material they are quoting.

Biasesed?  No - a conclusion.  Prove me wrong.

Site references actually get one nowhere.  The other side seeks to discredit the reference and offer references with no more validity.

By discredit I think yo9u mean point out how erroneous the claim is.


 And so it goes until one realizes the posters are not debating but rather those they quote.  


Which is why I usually ask quote-bearing YECs to explain the things they provide quotes for in their own owrds.  I almost never get a response to that request.


Logically, life evolving from the simplest forms that reproduce by splitting to life that reproduces sexually and that all randomly is not logical as it calls into question odds that are obviously prohibitive.  


And thus your 'logic' shows itself to be folk sciencey nonsense.

Show us the odds.

Show us the calculations and explain how they were done.

Show us what variables were employed and what values were used for the variables and why.

Prove that using similar calculations to show how unlikley YOUR existence is do not have merit, while YOUR calculations showing what you claim above DOES.

Creationists sure like tossing out assertions devoid of rationale, evidence, or logic.

Pity they never seem able to actually back up these assertions with anything other than special pleading, more assertions, and whiny nonsense.


***

ADDENDUM - easier to just provide  a link to the original:

Bergman caught, YEC protects him




(Edited by derwood 2/19/2010 at 08:06 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:14 AM on February 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello, cowgirl, and welcome.

If you're an intellectually honest person, i hope you stay around (evolutionist, creationist or whatever).

If you're not, i hope you go away.

cowgirl
apassionate has a very valid point.
So you say.

Creationists have this tendency to make claims.

Evolution theories
How many are there?

I hope you at least know what "theory" means.
are not logical.
What do you mean?

Seriously. What are you talking about?

I hope you at least know what "logic" is.
It is important to note that logic needs no references to support it as it stands on its own.
Very true. That's why it's not Science. But it's, nevertheless, important in Science (as is Math).

Logic is a means to look at a subject and determine validity of that subject based on whether its tenets are reasonable or not.  With respect to evolution they are not.
So you claim.

Can you back this up?

Evolutionists, who regard themselves as the epitome of intelligence and knowledge
I know some very stupid ones. I know several creationists that are smarter than several evolutionists.

And most of them (i assure you) don't think of themselves as "evolutionists". I sure don't.

I accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Does that make me a heliocentrist?
place a rediculous burden of proof on the creationist.
That's redneckulous...

Look, when you make a claim, the burden of its proof is on you.

I think you don't even know what "burden of proof" refers to. I think you mean how skeptically someone's evidence have to be received.

That's not what "burden of proof" is about. It's about WHO has to demonstrate something.

If i say there's a china teapot in orbit around the Sun between Mars and the Earth, and you say you don't buy it, the burden of proof is on me because i made the positive claim that does need evidence.
That's about it.

Any quote garnered from a creationist site is immediately pooh poohed for that reason and that reason alone.
Show me.

I pooh pooh them for being inconsistent with the data, or fallacious in some way.

But yeah... It's quite likely that something from a source that has already been demonstrated to be inaccurate won't be well received...

In any case i'd like a quote so i know what i'm talking about.
Why shouldn't evolutionists receive the same treatment when they quote scientific sites?
Peer review?

What, you don't believe ANYTHING?

Can we at least cite something nobody argues about?

Sometimes we show creationists some facts, and they have no problem with it, but when they're shown the LOGICAL ramifications and implications they start kicking and screaming. They want to go back and disacknowledge it.

That's dishonest.

In any case, i'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

I post pictures. Are pictures ok with you?
Site references actually get one nowhere.
What does get somewhere?

The other side seeks to discredit the reference and offer references with no more validity.  And so it goes until one realizes the posters are not debating but rather those they quote.
Here you are, talking about talking about talking about things, instead of talking about things.

Can we go to the data? Can we talk about facts?

Logically, life evolving from the simplest forms that reproduce by splitting to life that reproduces sexually and that all randomly is not logical
Logically it's not logical?

I think you don't know about logic either. Neither did A Passionate Player.

He started a quote about logical fallacies, he didn't show us ANY, and HE posted some:
*false dilemma
*argument from ignorance
*straw man
*ad hominem
*slippery slope
*psychogenetic fallacy
*non seqvitvr (he said that the whole can be more complex than the part about an atom and New York City... and he said that you can use our knowledge of DNA to know that...)
He used inept analogies. He was a disgrace to Logic.
as it calls into question odds that are obviously prohibitive.
Don't just say how obvious it is.

Go ahead. Show us.

"Numbers" is the right thread for that, but you can start a fresh one.



-------
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: 9:05 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood: Your post has no italics, bold or underlined text.

A couple of colors would make it more readable too. Just a suggestion.



-------
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: 9:19 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Showing a logical fallacy (regular way):

Affirming The Consequent:
logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q therefore P".
For example,
"All cats die; Socrates died; therefore Socrates was a cat."
Another example: "If space creatures were kidnapping people and examining them, the space creatures would probably hypnotically erase the memories of the people they examined. These people would thus suffer from amnesia. But in fact many people do suffer from amnesia. This tends to prove they were kidnapped and examined by space creatures."




Showing a logical fallacy (creationist's way).

Evolutionism has lots of logical fallacies in it!

Come on!

Just... Look at the universe. How can it come from nothing? Ha! That's a hole in the theory of evolution.

And holes are logical fallacies because... Come on!

And look at the Giraffe! The theory of evolution says it started as an atom-sized giraffe in the big bang. That's a logical fallacy! It's called "atom-sized giraffe fallacy". Come on!

Prove me wrong! You can't! I win! I'm winning at this very instant! I've already won! You don't understand logic and i do! Don't be rediculous! Come on!


(Edited by wisp 2/18/2010 at 11:33 PM).


-------
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: 11:30 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood - isn't the genome of an organism the entire DNA material within that organism?  If so, then there is a huge difference between 'genome duplication' and 'gene duplication'.  It's hard to believe that Bergman was being honest in his quote of the Science article.  Besides the title, he also substituted 'gene' for 'genome' in his quote.  A good example of Creationism misrepresentation and dishonesty.

BTW - I would say that polyploidy would be an example of genome duplication - yes?


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:16 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:19 PM on February 18, 2010 :
Derwood: Your post has no italics, bold or underlined text.

A couple of colors would make it more readable too. Just a suggestion.




Ah, yes - I forgot that all formatting is swept clean when you c&P...

I'll try to fix it...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:48 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:16 AM on February 19, 2010 :
Derwood - isn't the genome of an organism the entire DNA material within that organism?


Indeed it is.

 If so, then there is a huge difference between 'genome duplication' and 'gene duplication'.


Indeed there is.  Two completely different mechanisms, drastically different outcomes.

The YEC who has been defending Bergman tried to shrug it off by indicating that genome duplication de facto duplicates genes, so they are basically the same thing.

Which tells me either how much that guy understands these things or how low he is willing to go to ptotect his YEC source from being shown to be wrong.


 It's hard to believe that Bergman was being honest in his quote of the Science article.

I know - the italicised word 'Gene' while the rest was not in italics, to me, is the smoking gun.

 Besides the title, he also substituted 'gene' for 'genome' in his quote.  A good example of Creationism misrepresentation and dishonesty.

BTW - I would say that polyploidy would be an example of genome duplication - yes?

Yes.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:57 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
wisp
Derwood: Your post has no italics, bold or underlined text.

A couple of colors would make it more readable too. Just a suggestion.
Ah, yes - I forgot that all formatting is swept clean when you c&P...
Yes, that's what i had figured.

I read your post in CARM (indentation works as well as colors too).

Ah, the dishonesty... Ah, the pride... And the moronity, of course.

In the farfetched case that it WAS a typo (a very strange one that affects only the title and ends up with another valid word from the same field of study), then the article was about something else, and it was irrelevant. Why would he quote it?

Bah... I keep acting as if you could reason with them...



-------
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: 6:03 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, Evolutionists seem to be very stuck on the idea of creationists not having facts... then they seem to quite often ignore how stupid their ideas truly sound simply because in their eyes creationism sounds even worse.

The truth is simply that evolution cannot be proven by anyone.  They can try, make up excuses, write extremely long and boring books on it, claim that carbon dating actually works, and all the other common things we see, but the case of evolution cannot be proven.

The way evolution works is that it claims something alive came from something dead.

We don't have any examples of this ever happening in any circumstance of course, but evolution seems to believe this.

Now admittedly creationists have a lack of proof too, but given between the two, creationism is much more believable and far more logical (for reasons I posted before).

If you grew up specifically being taught one or the other, you probably are not fair to judge this of course...  Arguing with biased people from either end of the scales is horrible since they tend to deny flat out logic.  A very good example being Al Gore.  Still annoys me that he got a Nobel Prize for that...

Now sure, evolutionists give "proof" all the time.  But I find again and again this proof is unreliable for many reasons.

Usually those reasons would be: 1. Unreliable/Biased sources.  2.  Facts that are based upon assumptions.

My definition of proof would be factual evidence that clearly defines you're point in a way that is all encompassing.  It must not rely upon anything that is based on assumptions, it must be proven in a way that can be re-created/re-proven over and over again, and it must leave no alternatives.  (and preferably less than a page long)

Evolutionists have never fulfilled my definition of proof, and I don't think they can, which is why a forum like this still exists.

(Edited by aPassionatePlayer 3/30/2010 at 11:18 PM).


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 11:16 PM on March 30, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 11:16 PM on March 30, 2010 :
Well, Evolutionists seem to be very stuck on the idea of creationists not having facts... then they seem to quite often ignore how stupid their ideas truly sound simply because in their eyes creationism sounds even worse.


Um, if creationists have evidence supporting their claims I'd very much like to see it, we all would. The only problem is that we haven't seen any positive evidence for their claims, just attacking the theory of evolution in hopes that people will not notice the false dichotomy. In all the decades that people subscribed to creationism, and the over 2,000 history of trying to prove God through irreducibly complex systems, none of them has been able to survive scientific rigor.

If you have evidence for creationism please present it; preferably in a new thread.

The truth is simply that evolution cannot be proven by anyone.


I think we've gone over this before, but just as a reminder, science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with hypotheses, theories, facts, laws, evidence, experiments, but no proof. Like gravity has not been proven, same with the idea that germs cause certain types of diseases (germ theory).

But, evolution is an observable fact, and the theory of evolution explains that fact unifying many of the fields of biology and paleontology.

They can try, make up excuses, write extremely long and boring books on it, claim that carbon dating actually works, and all the other common things we see, but the case of evolution cannot be proven.


If we had just one way of dating (carbon dating), you might have a point. But that is just one of many radiometric dating systems, and one that is very limiting (only up to 60,000 years or so). We have dozens of radiometric dating methods, each with different half lives, and each one confirms the other when looking at a sample. Even when using other methods, like ice cores, tree rings, varve dating ect. all the evidence lines up. If this is all just coincidence, it's one crazy coincidence. And if there is something wrong with how we date stuff, then why is it that when we use different types of dating, that go by completely different processes, with different ranges, they all point to ruffly the same time period within a few percentage points of each other?

The way evolution works is that it claims something alive came from something dead.


No, that's either spontaneous generation (disproven by scientists) or some variant of religious texts (like genesis) that talk of God(s) creating ex-nihilo or perhaps the motif of humans coming from sand, clay, or dirt.

Evolution is about how populations of living organisms change over time. It doesn't matter if Yahweh spoke life into existence, or Prometheus crafted us, or a three legged aardvark did a little happy dance, or if natural processes are to blame, how life got here is irrelevant to the validity of the theory of biological evolution.  

We don't have any examples of this ever happening in any circumstance of course, but evolution seems to believe this.


Well, there's tons of evidence for populations changing over time. Even before Darwin came along people already knew that, Darwin just gave a mechanism for how they changed (natural selection). Here is a link to the talk origins page of observed instances of speciation. Just click on "Here" in the sentence before.

Now admittedly creationists have a lack of proof too, but given between the two, creationism is much more believable and far more logical (for reasons I posted before).


I profoundly disagree. I have yet to find a good scientific or theological reason why creationism should be correct.

If you grew up specifically being taught one or the other, you probably are not fair to judge this of course...


I grew up with essentially both ideas. I went to Church every Sunday, read Genesis several times believing it was authoritative when it came to natural history. My parents bought and read to me kids books about Bible stories including the flood, all which I took as literal fact. But neither of my parents were/are creationists, so I also was exposed to dinosaurs living millions of years ago, and was eventually introduced to evolution around 11.

Now sure, evolutionists give "proof" all the time.  But I find again and again this proof is unreliable for many reasons.

Usually those reasons would be: 1. Unreliable/Biased sources.


Like people who actually go to school and get degrees in science and then doing research and submitting it for peer-review? If you are trying to find out things about the natural world I can't think of a better system.

2.  Facts that are based upon assumptions.


Like ERVs and pseudogenes right?

My definition of proof would be factual evidence that clearly defines you're point in a way that is all encompassing.  It must not rely upon anything that is based on assumptions, it must be proven in a way that can be re-created/re-proven over and over again, and it must leave no alternatives.  (and preferably less than a page long)


Let's start from the beginning. Do you accept that populations have variety? Do you accept that these slight differences can affect their chances of survival by improving or reducing fitness/reproducing? Do you accept that DNA is the molecule of heredity? Do you accept that each generation has mutations that alter fitness? Do you accept that populations change allele frequencies over time?


-------
"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: 01:10 AM on March 31, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 8:21 PM on January 9, 2010 :[/quote}

Now here are the fallacies no one has answered:

1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.

2: Given that you somehow excuse #1, Why then do we not find animals half way through evolution?  There are no partial corpses of which we know.  Why are we the most advanced species?  Why then are there no less evolved people who are partially inhuman?

These are just 2.

Matthew



you should try to prove creation instead of disprove evolution.

evolution is theory based on scientific evidence and fact.

there are no fallacies about it....if there was the scientific community would toss it out.

here is more info about evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution




-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 02:23 AM on March 31, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Amazing... You haven't learned anything...
aPassionatePlayer
Well, Evolutionists seem to be very stuck on the idea of creationists not having facts...
Blah blah blah blah blah.
then they seem to quite often ignore how stupid their ideas truly sound simply because in their eyes creationism sounds even worse.
Blah blah blah blah blah.

Why don't you present some facts? Why don't you give us some data, instead of blah blah blah?

The truth
is simply that evolution cannot be proven by anyone.
The truth is that you don't even know what a proof is, and why it doesn't apply to Science.

You don't know the first thing about Science.
They can try, make up excuses,
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah.
write extremely long and boring books on it,
Haha! Like you read them.
claim that carbon dating actually works,
Blah blah blah, i don't know the first thing about dating methods, blah blah blah...
and all the other common things we see, but the case of evolution cannot be proven.
Indeed.

No scientific theory ever could be "proven".

Not even Cell Theory.

The way evolution works is that it claims something alive came from something dead.
Dead things used to be alive.

Are viruses dead, according to you?

We don't have any examples of this ever happening in any circumstance of course, but evolution seems to believe this.
Evolution believes? You sure?

Are you talking about people, facts or theories? Who does the believing?

Now admittedly creationists have a lack of proof too, but given between the two, creationism is much more believable and far more logical (for reasons I posted before).
You don't know what Logic is either.

You don't know what a logical fallacy is (you presented none, you indulged in many and i pointed them out with a name and a description).

If you grew up specifically being taught one or the other,
Logical fallacy > False dichotomy.
you probably are not fair to judge this of course...  
Blah blah blah blah.
Arguing with biased people from either end of the scales is horrible since they tend to deny flat out logic.
Blah blah blah.

Show me the Logic.

You haven't, so far.

If you think you have, go ahead. Quote yourself showing us a syllogism.
Perhaps you have and i don't remember.

We're talking Science here, not Logic (mainly applicable to philosophy, mathematics, and computer science). And you're not talking either one.

A very good example being Al Gore.  Still annoys me that he got a Nobel Prize for that...


Look, no feelings. Bring us data.

Now sure, evolutionists give "proof" all the time.

You used the secret word!

There is no "proof" in Science.

If someone says that he's using "proof" in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one.

But I find again and again this proof is unreliable for many reasons.
Oh... Many? Then we must be wrong!

Start threads for each one of those "many".

Start a thread for a single one, if you dare.

Usually those reasons would be: 1. Unreliable/Biased sources.
Blah blah blah.
2.  Facts that are based upon assumptions.
Facts based upon assumptions? Are you sure?

The INTERPRETATION we give to the facts relies on assumptions. Yes, always.

If you can't demonstrate that those assumptions are wrong, or that are unreliable, why bother saying that?

Without assumptions there is no Science.

My definition of proof would be factual evidence that clearly defines you're point in a way that is all encompassing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "all encompassing", but it seems like you're defining "evidence".

Perhaps "compelling evidence".

It must not rely upon anything that is based on assumptions, it must be proven in a way that can be re-created/re-proven over and over again, and it must leave no alternatives.
Sorry. Science doesn't work like that. That's Math.

In Science you should always leave the door open to the possibility that tomorrow the Earth will start rotating in the other direction (not that it's worth considering only because there's the possibility).

(and preferably less than a page long)
Oh! So you expect an answer?

Evolutionists have never fulfilled my definition of proof,
Yeeeah, we are very worried about that...
and I don't think they can, which is why a forum like this still exists.
Blah blah blah blah blah.

Nothing we ever show you will ever suffice, which is why forums like this still exist.

"Education cannot remedy serious delusion." -Robert J. Schadewald
Another one:
“The Universe does not bend itself to our ignorance.”

I mean... Since we're not talking about facts or any form of data, i might as well quote guys, like creationists do so often. ^_^

You know how good Science can be tested, aPP?
PREDICTIONS!

Using the ToE people go to a specific location, and to a specific layer, and find fossils never found before, with predicted characteristics.

You think that's magic, or you just don't believe it?



-------
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: 10:34 AM on March 31, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remember the title of the thread?

You have yet to present one of those logical fallacies in Evolution.

The atom-sized giraffe in the Big Bang wasn't a part of Evolution (not that it qualified as a logical fallacy anyway), so... Anything else?

I carefully replied to each of your points. You replied "Be careful. You're biased." or something like that.

Not a single quote, not a single fact... Lots of strawmen... Not the slightest clue of what Evolution is about...


(Edited by wisp 3/31/2010 at 1:06 PM).


-------
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: 12:47 PM on March 31, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

aPassionatePlayer
Well, Evolutionists seem to be very stuck on the idea of creationists not having facts...
Fencer 27
Um, if creationists have evidence supporting their claims I'd very much like to see it, we all would.


Ummm –Fencer –how many times would you like me to repeat –we all have the same evidence –it exists real time –the way we interpret it differs.

Everytime I mention specifics of evidence, I am ignored and out comes the same old story, day in, day out -
“If creationists have evidence, I’d very much like to see it.” You seem to copypaste from one another or else you're all possessed by the same spirit of deception.

The only reason I bother to be here is to throw in my two cents worth for anybody that might be sucked in by evolutionist fairy stories and garbage –as for the evolutionists on this forum, they see no evidence, hear no evidence and admit to no evidence.They are without excuse and most likely beyond help because the Bible and Creationists are clearly their worst enemies –making the argument essentially a religious one for them.

For you Fencer, your love of evolutionists and their atheistic drivel shows me that  you are essentially atheist in your perspectives. The god you believe in did nothing and is essentially still unemployed –what a hollow faith you have. May God open your eyes one day to see Him in His glory and not as the impotent idol you quite clearly have reduced him to.

But, evolution is an observable fact,


Only minor variation is observable. A fly remains a fly and will never be anything but a fly except in the mind of the evolutionist who thinks he might be a mighty mammalian hunter one day in the fictitious future when he mutates beyond his observable boundaries.

and the theory of evolution explains that fact unifying many of the fields of biology and paleontology.


That is a garbage mantra made to sound noble. This unification story is wonderful, quite wonderful but all very much imaginary as one fairy tale piles up on another.

just attacking the theory of evolution in hopes that people will not notice the false dichotomy.


Evolution = no creator = atheism
Intelligent design = creative intelligence
Not a false dichotomy at all. Either there was a creator or there wasn’t.

and the over 2,000 history of trying to prove God through irreducibly complex systems, none of them has been able to survive scientific rigor.


The ‘rigor’ is part of that imagination thing – it is based on pure bias. It says creation can’t be true so it doesn’t matter what the argument is, we will rip it to shreds in our own minds even if we have to deceive ourselves about our refutations in the process.

Shouting ‘refuted!’ loudly and persistently is only designed to convince the less scientifically educated masses who can’t fathom the argument.
It’s pure deception for which evolutionists will stand accountable one day. Between you, Derwood, Wisp et al you sound as if you have one mind between you and the continual rehash of the exact same comments and insults is boring.

If we had just one way of dating (carbon dating), you might have a point. But that is just one of many radiometric dating systems, and one that is very limiting (only up to 60,000 years or so). We have dozens of radiometric dating methods, each with different half lives, and each one confirms the other when looking at a sample. Even when using other methods, like ice cores, tree rings, varve dating ect. all the evidence lines up. If this is all just coincidence, it's one crazy coincidence. And if there is something wrong with how we date stuff, then why is it that when we use different types of dating, that go by completely different processes, with different ranges, they all point to ruffly the same time period within a few percentage points of each other?


Garbage Fencer –you obviously haven’t looked into this with any time and trouble. The assumptions are many and the same assumptions with all radiometric techniques, they are designed to get the ages to fall in the same range which of course has to be millions and thousands of millions of years otherwise evolution would fail at the get go.

Why stick with radiometric dating systems only?
I’ll tell you why because the many other dating techniques fall so far out of your range that there wouldn’t have been time to form the first cell membrane (if that were even possible by naturalistic processes) making them unacceptable to the evolutionist who needs TIME for his story to materialize in all its fabulous detail.

aPassionatePlayer
The way evolution works is that it claims something alive came from something dead.
Fencer27
No, that's either spontaneous generation (disproven by scientists) or some variant of religious texts


Something alive from something dead is exactly what evolution preaches –they just stretch it out over millenia for believability. As spontaneous generation was disproven, so abiogenesis slipped into its place. It’s the same thing.

Evolution is about how populations of living organisms change over time. It doesn't matter if Yahweh spoke life into existence, or Prometheus crafted us


It does. The evolution you believe in is inseparable from the atheist version. Sticking God in for good measure at the beginning falls flat since you don’t allow him to have even crafted the DNA around which the whole program hinges.

If God had anything to do with it, then it isn’t evolution. Atheism is the bedrock of evolution, not God. Evolution is all an undirected mistake.

Jesus Christ, God incarnate, is the stumbling block of atheists.

Well, there's tons of evidence for populations changing over time.


That’s part of creation – it is not the exclusive domain of evolution – God built variability into the creation so that it could multiply and fill the earth - so your tons of evidence is actually ours.

Even before Darwin came along people already knew that, Darwin just gave a mechanism for how they changed (natural selection).


Yes, a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth described the concept long before Darwin and in support of creation. Pity Darwin forgot to give him credit in his ramblings.

a link to the talk origins page of observed instances of speciation.


Speciation is a thinning of the genomic variability –a reduction in the genetic variability on the way to extinction. To demonstrate evolution, you’d need to demonstrate increasing information as required in order for bacteria to progressively turn into men, not corruption of information as overwhelmingly demonstrated by mutation.

aPassionatePlayer
Now admittedly creationists have a lack of proof too, but given between the two, creationism is much more believable and far more logical (for reasons I posted before).
Fencer27

I profoundly disagree. I have yet to find a good scientific or theological reason why creationism should be correct.


You are blind Fencer, quite blind.

But neither of my parents were/are creationists, so I also was exposed to dinosaurs living millions of years ago, and was eventually introduced to evolution around 11.


No wonder you became confused. In all fairness, your parents were obviously confused as well and just passed it on.

Like people who actually go to school and get degrees in science and then doing research and submitting it for peer-review?


But be sure to close your eyes to the controversy and ignore any of the many qualified scientists who dare to disagree. We’d hate to rattle your faith.

If you are trying to find out things about the natural world I can't think of a better system


Unless the peer review system is heavily weighted with DODOs (Darwin only Darwin only) in which case any slight whiff of dissent will be heavily frowned upon and your name will be added to the DODO hit list to be watched carefully for revolutionary tendencies which will not be tolerated at any cost.
We all get to stagnate in science thanks to your blindness.But we'll carry on piling on the pressure till your nonsense falls apart all on its own via the multiplication of contradictions.  

It’s a real sad system – you might just as well be in communist Russia before the iron curtain was torn down –so seriously do they take disagreement.

Facts that are based upon assumptions.
Like ERVs and pseudogenes right?


Yes exactly! You’re learning fast. Both concepts are based on the assumption that evolution has happened and that the genome is littered with refuse from millennia of evolutionary experiments when, in fact, it is now evident that the genome is more than likely 100% functional (as creationists predicted it would be since it was created by an intelligence)
Evolutionary science has been holding back genetics by virtue of their DODO blinker system.

Let's start from the beginning. Do you accept that populations have variety?


That's not exclusive to evolution –it was always the domain of creation as well.

Do you accept that these slight differences can affect their chances of survival by improving or reducing fitness/reproducing?


Edward Blyth – creationist –wrote about natural selection long before Darwin

Do you accept that DNA is the molecule of heredity?


Everyone in the world accepts that  - perhaps there are some primitive tribes that don’t teach it at school yet.

Do you accept that each generation has mutations that alter fitness?


Yes they degrade the genome and are occasionally situationally beneficial –wrong direction for evolution - in fact it is demonstrably devolution.

Do you accept that populations change allele frequencies over time?


Creationists accept that too. That is not exclusive to evolution. It is evidential/ demonstrable. We only differ on the part nobody has ever seen – like the unobservable extrapolation when a monkey turns into a man or a bacteria evolves into an invertebrate.
What is your point?




-------
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: 03:30 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:30 AM on April 1, 2010 :
aPassionatePlayer
Well, Evolutionists seem to be very stuck on the idea of creationists not having facts...
Fencer 27
Um, if creationists have evidence supporting their claims I'd very much like to see it, we all would.


Ummm –Fencer –how many times would you like me to repeat –we all have the same evidence –it exists real time –the way we interpret it differs.

Everytime I mention specifics of evidence, I am ignored and out comes the same old story, day in, day out -
“If creationists have evidence, I’d very much like to see it.”


Lester,
where is the evidence?
creationists have no fossils....creationists can't even accept that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

its written in a book that the first man was made from dust and the first woman was made from that man's rib.

i actually believed that until i was about 8....over the years i have really tried to understand how people can believe that....but it absolutley makes no sense to me.





-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 05:35 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:30 AM on April 1, 2010 :


Ummm –Fencer –how many times would you like me to repeat –we all have the same evidence –it exists real time –the way we interpret it differs.

Everytime I mention specifics of evidence, I am ignored and out comes the same old story, day in, day out -


OK Lester, here is an example of you presenting "evidence", and it doesn't look like you were ignored, but you certainly ignored the response:


Lester presenting "evidence"

Quote from Lester10 at 05:36 AM on March 3, 2009 :

From the "Journal of Geophysical Research" - it was reported that the lava from an 1800-1801 eruption  of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii has been radiometrically dated using various minerals and methods from which ten different dates were derived, ranging from 140 million to 2,96 billion years.



Quote from Apoapsis at 07:49 AM on March 3, 2009 :
The dynamics of rapidly emplaced terrestrial lava flows and implications for planetary volcanism
The dynamics of rapidly emplaced terrestrial lava flows and implications for planetary volcanism

Stephen Baloga

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

Paul D. Spudis

Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas

John E. Guest

University of London Observatory, London, England

The Kaupulehu 1800–1801 lava flow of Hualalai volcano and the 1823 Keaiwa flow from the Great Crack of the Kilauea southwest rift zone had certain unusual and possibly unique properties for terrestrial basaltic lava flows. Both flows apparently had very low viscosities, high effusion rates, and uncommonly rapid rates of advance. Ultramafic xenolith nodules in the 1801 flow form stacks of cobbles with lava rinds of only millimeter thicknesses. The velocity of the lava stream in the 1801 flow was extremely high, at least 10 m s−1 (more than 40 km h−1). Observations and geological evidence suggest similarly high velocities for the 1823 flow. The unusual eruption conditions that produced these lava flows suggest a floodlike mode of emplacement unlike that of most other present-day flows. Although considerable effort has gone into understanding the viscous fluid dynamics and thermal processes that often occur in basaltic flows, the unusual conditions prevalent for the Kaupulehu and Keaiwa flows necessitate different modeling considerations. We propose an elementary flood model for this type of lava emplacement and show that it produces consistent agreement with the overall dimensions of the flow, channel sizes, and other supporting field evidence. The reconstructed dynamics of these rapidly emplaced terrestrial lava flows provide significant insights about the nature of these eruptions and their analogs in planetary volcanism.


Read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective and see what he says about xenoliths.

Xenolith Literally, a foreign chunk of rock within a rock. Some rocks contain pieces of older rocks within them. These pieces were ripped off of the magma chamber in which the main rock formed and were incorporated into the rock without melting. Xenoliths do not occur in most rocks, and they are usually recognizable by eye where they do occur. If unrecognized, they can result in an incorrect date for a rock (the date may be of the older xenolith).







-------
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: 06:35 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,
where is the evidence?
creationists have no fossils....


You’re wrong Jetzen, all the fossils that exist are our evidence.
You don’t just see fossils, you see patterns in fossils, you have to interpret evidence according to some worldview.

Nobody makes any decisions about what something stands for in a vacuum. If you look at a rock with fossils embedded in it, you don’t see evolution –you see fully formed and once functional organisms.
You decide how they got there according to your worldview.

So you have to look at the complete pattern that is available to decide whether evolution or creation is the most likely explanation. There are only those two possibilities. Don’t let anyone tell you it could have been Thor or a massive turtle that holds the earth up and many other clearly ridiculous pseudo-explanations that evolutionists use to ridicule creation.

At this point don’t worry about whether it was God or Allah or who the creator was because you can’t tell that sort of thing by looking at the fossils and all the other evidence –you can only say whether evolution or creation is the more likely explanation for what we see.

its written in a book that the first man was made from dust and the first woman was made from that man's rib.

i actually believed that until i was about 8


How amazing are the things that are created Jetzen? There is such incredible engineering genius in so many organisms that exist on this earth that the closer you look at the details, the more incredible the living world is and the more unlikely that it put itself together by chance arrangement of parts.

I understand your problem. I also grew up hearing the Bible but I don’t think my mother was particularly convinced either at the time and as for my father, he was very polite about the Bible but he’s a biologist and it almost goes without saying that that makes him evolutionarily inclined since that is what they learn on their way to their degrees.

Biologists can be clever people and they are generally taught by other +/- clever people but they are not infallible and just because they chose to follow Darwin’s explanations for origins does not make that explanation true. It takes a very small portion of their learning time and in my father’s case he spent the most time on soy beans and agriculture and then diatoms. That evolutionary bent comes from being told that it is true by people he respected and those teachers  believed it for the same reason.

It is nonetheless a philosophical choice to believe that natural law is capable of organizing lifeforms and the DNA that codes for everything. It has never been demonstrated not with all the brains and all the laboratory know-how in the world –so it is a faith-based belief, a religion.

Back to the fossils – the overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, where potential candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception , not the rule. For example in the Cambrian explosion, nearly all the body plans for animals appear at the same geological instant without any apparent evolutionary precursors.

That is not the only explosion, there’s also a fish explosion, a bird explosion and  a plant explosion with no sign of where any of them came from.
So did they evolve or is there another explanation for the phenomenon?

You can’t have it both ways – point to the few plausible links that exist and say ‘there’s the evidence’ and then in the next breath point to everything else that appear suddenly and with no apparent precursors and say again ‘there’s the evidence –we just haven’t found the precursors yet.’ For evolutionists there is far more lack of evidence then there is evidence whereas for creationists, there is far more evidence than lack thereof. The evidence I speak of is the evidence for an intelligent creator, not for the God of the Bible - that is another argument altogether.

So it's heads I win, tails I win –transitions are evidence for evolution and no transitions are evidence for evolution.
You have to look at the overall pattern and decide whether creation or evolution is the most likely answer.

Just because you don’t like the idea of a creator doesn’t mean there isn’t one –where did our brains come from? Why do we know right from wrong and feel guilt? That’s not evolution –that’s part of the program.
Next time you look at a fly, think of it as a miniature piece of incredible engineering unlike anything man’s brains have ever produced. Not only can it do incredibly co-ordinated manoevres but it can reproduce and make more of the same.
How could male-female reproduction evolve? Two separate creatures made to fit together and each with necessary parts to contribute to the programming of the next generation as well as the drive to make the next generation instinctively.

I didn’t used to think like this – evolution sounded feasible to me for many years. It no longer does. The change in my understanding came when I was presented with the alternate interpretation of the data (including all the data that is systematically left out of biology class.)

Why? Because you may not believe that evolution happened if all the data is out on the table. Evolution can’t stand up to scrutiny.      

       



-------
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: 09:50 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:50 AM on April 1, 2010 :


Why? Because you may not [b]believe that evolution happened if all the data is out on the table. Evolution can’t stand up to scrutiny.      


But Lester,
evolution is standing up to scrutiny if was'nt it would be tossed out.
it is the only logical explanation about our origins.

science is not forgiving.





-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 11:05 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:50 AM on April 1, 2010 :

Back to the fossils – the overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, where potential candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception , not the rule. For example in the Cambrian explosion, nearly all the body plans for animals appear at the same geological instant without any apparent evolutionary precursors.


Except the precursors that you have been shown, but reject.

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:34 AM on February 28, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 08:03 AM on February 28, 2009 :
Well evolutionists have yet to explain how the Cambrian big bang occurred? No tree of life there.


They came from Vendian fauna.






-------
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: 12:24 PM on April 1, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:30 AM on April 1, 2010 :
Ummm –Fencer –how many times would you like me to repeat –we all have the same evidence –it exists real time –the way we interpret it differs.


Let's find out...

Everytime I mention specifics of evidence, I am ignored and out comes the same old story, day in, day out -
“If creationists have evidence, I’d very much like to see it.” You seem to copypaste from one another or else you're all possessed by the same spirit of deception.


We create specific threads for you to explain your evidence, and we've asked many other times to create threads talking about evidence X that you bring up. While I understand that you are one person, and we all have lives outside of this forum, I don't think I or any other skeptic of creationism here feels that you've delivered on presenting your evidence beyond sound bites, anecdotes and elementary understandings that are usually riddled with misconceptions and oversimplified metaphors.

The only reason I bother to be here is to throw in my two cents worth for anybody that might be sucked in by evolutionist fairy stories and garbage –as for the evolutionists on this forum, they see no evidence, hear no evidence and admit to no evidence.They are without excuse and most likely beyond help because the Bible and Creationists are clearly their worst enemies –making the argument essentially a religious one for them.


It's not religious because we deny your interpretation of the Bible (which has little scholarship support btw) or we stand firm against creationism. It's more of an outcry that such things are still largely supported among the masses and are trying to force its way into the school system.

For you Fencer, your love of evolutionists and their atheistic drivel shows me that  you are essentially atheist in your perspectives.


In a way I am. OTOH, I am totally opposite. When it comes to the natural world I take a methodological naturalist approach, same as any atheist. But, I appose philosophical naturalism. Yes I think the Big Bang happened, evolution is correct and the first life appeared via chemical processes that took place in pre-biotic Earth. I accept it because that is what the evidence suggests. If such a thing needed God's supernatural influence to come about, then God obviously helped said processes along, but you can't measure or test that. Thus I say it is an unknown; God guided the process but we can't say to what extent exactly.

The god you believe in did nothing and is essentially still unemployed –what a hollow faith you have. May God open your eyes one day to see Him in His glory and not as the impotent idol you quite clearly have reduced him to.


It is nowhere near hollow, if it was I'd be a professed atheist; there is absolutely nothing that I can not reconcile with an atheistic belief or world view. Yet, I choose faith, and it is quite vibrant; I go (on average) to Bible study groups 2 times a week on campus, go to Sunday worship at my home Church, help run a faith based social justice system with my Church that reaches out to the community and teenagers, and I love every minute of it. I see God's wonderful work everywhere I look, and O is it so joyous and full of life. God isn't absent from natural phenomena, for God is God of all, and through Him all things are made possible.

Only minor variation is observable. A fly remains a fly and will never be anything but a fly except in the mind of the evolutionist who thinks he might be a mighty mammalian hunter one day in the fictitious future when he mutates beyond his observable boundaries.


Yes, and the moon is made of cheese.

and the theory of evolution explains that fact unifying many of the fields of biology and paleontology.

That is a garbage mantra made to sound noble. This unification story is wonderful, quite wonderful but all very much imaginary as one fairy tale piles up on another.


Not imaginary, supported by the evidence. I'd dare say that to impose a non-tree/web of life is very much in the imaginations of many creationists.

Evolution = no creator = atheism
Intelligent design = creative intelligence
Not a false dichotomy at all. Either there was a creator or there wasn’t.


Yet evolution doesn't answer that question, nor was it ever meant to. While evolution, and science in general, can lead someone to atheism, the two are clearly not synonymous with each other. Ruffly 45% of natural scientists are religious and believe in a God that answers prayers. And over 99% of them accept evolution as fact! You, and most other creationists, don't want anything to do with the idea of TE from what I've seen. In fact, I'd say creationists despise us, hate us, fear us, because I think we are seen as the greatest threat to your world view. No longer is it just non-believers who say that you are wrong, but now Christians are saying you are wrong in both your science and theology; and I think creationists find this very unnerving.

The ‘rigor’ is part of that imagination thing – it is based on pure bias. It says creation can’t be true so it doesn’t matter what the argument is, we will rip it to shreds in our own minds even if we have to deceive ourselves about our refutations in the process.


Can you give me an example?

Shouting ‘refuted!’ loudly and persistently is only designed to convince the less scientifically educated masses who can’t fathom the argument.


Do I sense a little projection on your part?

It’s pure deception for which evolutionists will stand accountable one day. Between you, Derwood, Wisp et al you sound as if you have one mind between you and the continual rehash of the exact same comments and insults is boring.


So challenge them.

Why stick with radiometric dating systems only?


I didn't. I mentioned tree rings, ice cores and varve dating along with radiometric dating.

I’ll tell you why because the many other dating techniques fall so far out of your range that there wouldn’t have been time to form the first cell membrane (if that were even possible by naturalistic processes) making them unacceptable to the evolutionist who needs TIME for his story to materialize in all its fabulous detail.


Well, we can create a primitive cell membrane quite easily though; just put some phospholipids in an aqueous solution and presto- you have micelles and phospholipid bi-layers, the essential component and structure of cell membranes.

But each dating method is good for a certain range, and scientists know and understand what dating method works for what. The oldest bush is 11,000 years old, we can trace tree rings back to 20,000 years. Even the famed city of Jericho can trace inhabitants back to 9,000 BC while creationists proclaim a universe created in 4,000 BC!

But you never answered the question, if all of these dates are wrong, why is there such congruency between them all? I doubt just ranting off conspiracy theories will be impressive to anyone, and it will most likely come off as someone with no case to present.

Something alive from something dead is exactly what evolution preaches –they just stretch it out over millenia for believability. As spontaneous generation was disproven, so abiogenesis slipped into its place. It’s the same thing.


No, spontaneous generation is that life can pop up just about anywhere and is a common place phenomena. Besides, it's not as if there is no evidence for abiogenesis these days. Primitive cell membranes could have easily formed as vesicles, which can incorporate nucleotide monomers and bind them together creating polymers. And it's been shown that only a five long nucleotide ribozyme can translate tRNA into functional proteins! I really don't think creationists are preparing the likely possibility that we will synthesize life in the lab in the not so distant future.

It does. The evolution you believe in is inseparable from the atheist version. Sticking God in for good measure at the beginning falls flat since you don’t allow him to have even crafted the DNA around which the whole program hinges.


As I've said before, I take it as an unknown to exactly how much God intervened. But if God really did make the universe and all it's governing laws and sustains them, I think it would be a grave error to view God as a simple conjurer constantly tweaking every step. For if God needed to tweak every step, then He didn't do that good of a job in the first place.

If God had anything to do with it, then it isn’t evolution. Atheism is the bedrock of evolution, not God. Evolution is all an undirected mistake.


Evolution is founded on the evidence, not atheistic philosophy. Why is it so hard to even entertain the idea that God used evolution?

And you shamelessly say 'evolution is all an undirected mistake.' I'm pretty sure it's been told to you scores of times that it is not some random, undirected processes.

Jesus Christ, God incarnate, is the stumbling block of atheists.


I don't see it. Many atheists and non-Christians like the teachings of Jesus. Ironically, many proclaimed 'Christians' do not. Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." And there's even a website about 'atheists for Jesus'. I think the biggest stumbling blocks comes from those who talk about being Christian, yet commit horrible acts in God's name. The lying and deceit emanating from Christian culture, and the cold pride seen among the Christian nation. That, in congruence, with faulty and outrageous claims of the natural world, and the crafty attempt at twisting science for their own means. No, it is not Jesus that is a stumbling block to non-believers, it is the Christian culture and our, as of now, failed attempt to keep the entire law summed up in one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14) We have done more to be a stumbling block than any true teaching of Christ. Where we should have augmented Christ's teaching we diminished it, and made our very name infamous among the nations.

That’s part of creation – it is not the exclusive domain of evolution – God built variability into the creation so that it could multiply and fill the earth - so your tons of evidence is actually ours.


While slight variances may not contradict creationism, I don't see how they support it without invoking ad hoc rationalizations.

Yes, a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth described the concept long before Darwin and in support of creation. Pity Darwin forgot to give him credit in his ramblings.


Well, Darwin does mention him in the first chapter in the Origin of Species. Although he saw natural selection as more of an eliminating factor rather than a selection process. Also, he though that species were stable, and his hypothesis wasn't concerned how species change, but how they stay stable, which is what he believed.

Speciation is a thinning of the genomic variability –a reduction in the genetic variability on the way to extinction. To demonstrate evolution, you’d need to demonstrate increasing information as required in order for bacteria to progressively turn into men, not corruption of information as overwhelmingly demonstrated by mutation.


Okay, here's a paper on monarch flycatchers that shows how a single mutation creating a new phenotype is driving speciation. Not the loss of genetic variance, but the gain of it!

I profoundly disagree. I have yet to find a good scientific or theological reason why creationism should be correct.


You are blind Fencer, quite blind.


Why, because I actually understand that Genesis was not written to be authoritative on science, and I actually understand science well enough to know that the evidence doesn't line up with a literal interpretation of religious text?

No wonder you became confused. In all fairness, your parents were obviously confused as well and just passed it on.


I wasn't confused when I got older. For a while I was wondering what the adults weren't telling me that would make these (bible) stories believable. By the third grade I was already proclaiming the flood as fiction.

But be sure to close your eyes to the controversy and ignore any of the many qualified scientists who dare to disagree. We’d hate to rattle your faith.


That's not at all what I've done. I seriously considered creationist claims, and the possibility that they were right when I first started debating online about a year and a half ago. I thank God I was also an a board that had several extremely well-educated Christians (one of which was an actual retired PhD biologist researcher), and a few who knew Greek and/or Hebrew, and many more who were also well educated about the faith. They could demolish any and all claims made by creationists when it came to theology and science. I had a hard time understanding the friction between YECs and TEs when I first joined. After all, one of my best friends in high school was a YEC, but overtime I understood.

Unless the peer review system is heavily weighted with DODOs (Darwin only Darwin only) in which case any slight whiff of dissent will be heavily frowned upon and your name will be added to the DODO hit list to be watched carefully for revolutionary tendencies which will not be tolerated at any cost.


By "dissent", if you mean "religious dogmatic ideals", then yes I'll agree. Do you realize that many of the most accepted theories today came by challenging the status-quo? Relativity, QM, plate tectonics, oxygen theory, germ theory, BBT etc. Science drives on new ideas overthrowing old ones, as long as the new ideas are based on sound evidence. If you or anyone has real evidence against evolution the scientific community would be happy to accept it, unfortunately that has yet to happen.

We all get to stagnate in science thanks to your blindness.But we'll carry on piling on the pressure till your nonsense falls apart all on its own via the multiplication of contradictions.


What contradictions?  

It’s a real sad system – you might just as well be in communist Russia before the iron curtain was torn down –so seriously do they take disagreement.


Only because of the way creationists present their 'evidence'. If they did real research and published it in real science journals I think there would be a lot more respect instead of their continual push to force it into the public schools and the uneducated public.

Facts that are based upon assumptions.
Like ERVs and pseudogenes right?

Yes exactly! You’re learning fast. Both concepts are based on the assumption that evolution has happened and that the genome is littered with refuse from millennia of evolutionary experiments when, in fact, it is now evident that the genome is more than likely 100% functional (as creationists predicted it would be since it was created by an intelligence)
Evolutionary science has been holding back genetics by virtue of their DODO blinker system.


But what about pseudogenes? The vast majority of identified pseudogenes don't make functional proteins, they are completely useless.

Let's start from the beginning. Do you accept that populations have variety?

That's not exclusive to evolution –it was always the domain of creation as well.


Well it is also a main idea of evolution as well. I'm just trying to establish what is being accepted from the creationist side and what isn't. I thought the basics was the best place to start.

Do you accept that these slight differences can affect their chances of survival by improving or reducing fitness/reproducing?

Edward Blyth – creationist –wrote about natural selection long before Darwin


Blyth was more about artificial selection reducing the variety and keeping populations stable over time. But either way, modern evolution is not about what either Darwin or Blyth had to say. So I guess your answer to the question is "yes"?

Do you accept that DNA is the molecule of heredity?

Everyone in the world accepts that  - perhaps there are some primitive tribes that don’t teach it at school yet.


Just covering all the bases. Remember, even when we knew about DNA we didn't know that it was the molecule of heredity until later.

Do you accept that each generation has mutations that alter fitness?

Yes they degrade the genome and are occasionally situationally beneficial –wrong direction for evolution - in fact it is demonstrably devolution.


And that's why we have gene duplication with mutation leading to novel functions right?

Do you accept that populations change allele frequencies over time?

Creationists accept that too. That is not exclusive to evolution. It is evidential/ demonstrable. We only differ on the part nobody has ever seen – like the unobservable extrapolation when a monkey turns into a man or a bacteria evolves into an invertebrate.
What is your point?


My point is to establish certain principles and go from there.

So do you accept that speciation can and does happen? Do you accept some of the common ideas about speciation, genetic drift, founder effect, allopatric speciation, perapatric speciation etc. Do you accept that mutations can increase genetic variety?

(Edited by Fencer27 4/1/2010 at 11:25 AM).


-------
"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: 11:15 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Fencer
aPassionatePlayer
Well, Evolutionists seem to be very stuck on the idea of creationists not having facts...
Um, if creationists have evidence supporting their claims I'd very much like to see it, we all would.
Ummm –Fencer –how many times would you like me to repeat –we all have the same evidence –it exists real time –the way we interpret it differs.
All the times you want'. That doesn't make it any true.

Mimicry and warning colors. Those are two of my pieces of evidence for Evolution.

You say we have the same. Then come to the right thread and let's have a debate.

I also have evidence that you don't know what you're talking about when you say "information". This is it: Does a spider web contain information?

You don't know. That's my demonstration.

Everytime I mention specifics of evidence, I am ignored and out comes the same old story, day in, day out -
Ignored?

When?

Man, i have to chase you around to get this evidence you keep vaguely mentioning!

I started a thread devoted to that very subject (your pieces of evidence).

Your last one was mythochristian Eve. I added it to the list, and started a thread. You never showed up.

“If creationists have evidence, I’d very much like to see it.” You seem to copypaste from one another or else you're all possessed by the same spirit of deception.
Blah blah blah blah blah.

The only reason I bother to be here is to throw in my two cents worth for anybody that might be sucked in by evolutionist fairy stories and garbage –as for the evolutionists on this forum, they see no evidence, hear no evidence and admit to no evidence. They are without excuse and most likely beyond help because the Bible and Creationists are clearly their worst enemies –making the argument essentially a religious one for them.
Blah.

For you Fencer, your love of evolutionists and their atheistic drivel shows me that  you are essentially atheist in your perspectives.
Remember: Evolution is as atheist as Gravity: NOT AT ALL!

You acknowledged it:
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
The TOE requires life to come from non-living chemicals, it’s an atheistic system
Lester
The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God, so it is an atheistic philosophy.
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.
And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.
I agree.
By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.
Neither is.
Exactly! Finally!

So, just to be clear (i really hope you don't back away from this realization), you do acknowledge that you were wrong when you wrote the first phrase, right? Or did you just lose track and didn't know what you were talking about?
You never answered, but it seems pretty clear that you had acknowledged it.

But, evolution is an observable fact,
Only minor variation is observable. A fly remains a fly and will never be anything but a fly except in the mind of the evolutionist who thinks he might be a mighty mammalian hunter one day in the fictitious future when he mutates beyond his observable boundaries.
Straw man.

You lose.

Unless, of course, you show me a single evolution scientist who says that. In that case i'll lower my head in shame and say "Lester, you were right, and i was wrong. I concede defeat."

Meanwhile, you lose.

Shame on you, Lester. Because straw men are a very uncool way to lose.

just attacking the theory of evolution in hopes that people will not notice the false dichotomy.
Evolution = no creator = atheism
What about gravity?

Saying that God didn't puff living things into existence is not the same as denying Him. It just denies YOUR version.

Intelligent design = creative intelligence
Not a false dichotomy at all. Either there was a creator or there wasn’t.
That's true. But we can have
*a creator without Evolution,
*a creator with Evolution,
*no creator with Evolution,
*no creator and no Evolution (this one is the least likely, but still an option).
*Lots of options inside of each one of the above.


False dichotomy, Lester.

If we had just one way of dating (carbon dating), you might have a point. But that is just one of many radiometric dating systems, and one that is very limiting (only up to 60,000 years or so). We have dozens of radiometric dating methods, each with different half lives, and each one confirms the other when looking at a sample. Even when using other methods, like ice cores, tree rings, varve dating ect. all the evidence lines up. If this is all just coincidence, it's one crazy coincidence. And if there is something wrong with how we date stuff, then why is it that when we use different types of dating, that go by completely different processes, with different ranges, they all point to ruffly the same time period within a few percentage points of each other?
Garbage Fencer –you obviously haven’t looked into this with any time and trouble.
Does that mean that YOU have?

Please, start threads and show us.

I haven't had the time. Perhaps i can learn something from you.

The assumptions are many and the same
In all fields of Science, yes.
So?
Do you have a point?
assumptions with all radiometric techniques, they are designed to get the ages to fall in the same range which of course has to be millions and thousands of millions of years otherwise evolution would fail at the get go.
You think geologists calibrate their instruments and techniques in order to validate Evolution?

Talk about conspiranoia...

Something alive from something dead is exactly what evolution preaches –they just stretch it out over millenia for believability.
Straw man.

You lose.

As spontaneous generation was disproven, so abiogenesis slipped into its place. It’s the same thing.
As i've demonstrated in the thread Spontaneous Generation EVERY form of reproduction is spontaneous generation, according to your interpretation of our point of view.
Here:
Anyway, if we STILL don't believe in any of that it means that we STILL believe in "spontaneous generation" of mice and men.
If you don't believe that there is anything but the following of natural laws
Again, i don't know what you mean by that.
with no intelligent input required, then you believe in spontaneous generation.
Thank you! An answer, finally!

So, if you would give the tag of "spontaneous generation" to every form of reproduction we believe in, then WHY, oh WHY do you focus on Abiogenesis? EVERYTHING is spontaneous generation from your perspective of our perspective!


Evolution is about how populations of living organisms change over time. It doesn't matter if Yahweh spoke life into existence, or Prometheus crafted us
It does.
No, it doesn't.

Not to the ToE.
The evolution you believe in is inseparable from the atheist version.
Blah blah blah.
Sticking God in for good measure at the beginning falls flat since you don’t allow him to have even crafted the DNA around which the whole program hinges.
Since HE doesn't allow it?

Since WE don't allow it?

WE, Lester, are not the ToE.

If God had anything to do with it, then it isn’t evolution.
Some of us believe that God has to do with EVERYTHING.

You lose.

Speciation is a thinning of the genomic variability –a reduction in the genetic variability on the way to extinction.
Start a thread and defend that claim.

Or shut up.

To demonstrate evolution, you’d need to demonstrate increasing information
It depends on the definition of "information". Under one of the definitions, yes, you're right. And we have.

Under some other definitions, no, you're wrong.

as required in order for bacteria to progressively turn into men, not corruption of information as overwhelmingly demonstrated by mutation.
Blah blah blah.

You can't even tell me if a spider web contains information or not. So how could you "demonstrate" anything regarding that elusive "information" thing?

Fencer27
I profoundly disagree. I have yet to find a good scientific or theological reason why creationism should be correct.
You are blind Fencer, quite blind.
Blah blah blah.

But neither of my parents were/are creationists, so I also was exposed to dinosaurs living millions of years ago, and was eventually introduced to evolution around 11.
No wonder you became confused. In all fairness, your parents were obviously confused as well and just passed it on.
Lester, why don't you focus and start saying only things worth replying to?

"Obviously"...

Like people who actually go to school and get degrees in science and then doing research and submitting it for peer-review?
But be sure to close your eyes to the controversy and ignore any of the many qualified scientists who dare to disagree.
Qualified in what?

The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a joke. Darwinism doesn't exist. The amount of scientists is insignificant. Their fields doesn't qualify them to anything.

Their dissent is a scientific dissent in the same way their farts are scientific farts.

Do you accept that populations change allele frequencies over time?
Creationists accept that too. That is not exclusive to evolution.
That IS Evolution.

You're saying that Evolution is not exclusive to Evolution.



-------
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: 11:34 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everytime I mention specifics of evidence, I am ignored and out comes the same old story, day in, day out -
“If creationists have evidence, I’d very much like to see it.” You seem to copypaste from one another or else you're all possessed by the same spirit of deception.
We create specific threads for you to explain your evidence, and we've asked many other times to create threads talking about evidence X that you bring up. While I understand that you are one person, and we all have lives outside of this forum, I don't think I or any other skeptic of creationism here feels that you've delivered on presenting your evidence beyond sound bites, anecdotes and elementary understandings that are usually riddled with misconceptions and oversimplified metaphors.
Fencer, that was excellent.

God isn't absent from natural phenomena, for God is God of all, and through Him all things are made possible.
That was excellent too.
Taoists say the same thing about the tao.

It's very ridiculous to say that a Theory or any other system or discipline is atheist because it doesn't include a Jewish tribal deity as a vague mechanism.

Plumbing is just as atheist (i mean, beyond a plumber saying "Thank God!" when he gets to clear a blocked pipe).

Primitive cell membranes could have easily formed as vesicles, which can incorporate nucleotide monomers and bind them together creating polymers.
And polymers have a harder time leaving the membrane (because of their size).

I really don't think creationists are preparing the likely possibility that we will synthesize life in the lab in the not so distant future.
That won't matter. They'll see it as evidence for intelligent design.

They'll say "No way! No way! No way! No way! ...Ok, way, but that's evidence for ID!"

Yes, a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth described the concept long before Darwin and in support of creation. Pity Darwin forgot to give him credit in his ramblings.
Well, Darwin does mention him in the first chapter in the Origin of Species. Although he saw natural selection as more of an eliminating factor rather than a selection process. Also, he though that species were stable, and his hypothesis wasn't concerned how species change, but how they stay stable, which is what he believed.
Woah, Fencer! You've been doing your homework!


Speciation is a thinning of the genomic variability –a reduction in the genetic variability on the way to extinction. To demonstrate evolution, you’d need to demonstrate increasing information as required in order for bacteria to progressively turn into men, not corruption of information as overwhelmingly demonstrated by mutation.
Okay, here's a paper on monarch flycatchers that shows how a single mutation creating a new phenotype is driving speciation. Not the loss of genetic variance, but the gain of it!
Man! You're on fire!

Do you accept that these slight differences can affect their chances of survival by improving or reducing fitness/reproducing?
Edward Blyth – creationist –wrote about natural selection long before Darwin
Blyth was more about artificial selection reducing the variety and keeping populations stable over time. But either way, modern evolution is not about what either Darwin or Blyth had to say. So I guess your answer to the question is "yes"?
Fencer, are you on some smart drug or something?

I want some! Your post was awesome!

Not that they're not usually quite good. ^_^



-------
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: 12:18 PM on April 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, aPP?

You never presented a single logical fallacy. You never answered my first reply. You dismissed it saying that i was biased, and then you started claiming victory.

Now you come by from time to time just tossing blah blah blah. No facts, no logical fallacies... Nothing of worth.

Here's what you have to do: Find a quote (not taken out of context, preferably) from us or from any qualified scientist, explaining a fundamental principle of the ToE, and show us how it fits with any known logical fallacy (you need to identify it by name).

That's it. ^_^



-------
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: 06:16 AM on April 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,

You complain about being one person and all that, then you write lengthy posts in threads that do nothing but solidify our negative impression of you while you leave other threads dangling.

ike this one.

Or this one.

Or this one.

Or....


You say you present evidence, but you don't.  Whining about evolution is not evidence for YECism.  Strawman caricatures about 'how did blind chance do this?' is not evidence for YECism.  Claiming that museum displays do not match is not evidence for YECism.  

And so on...






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:53 AM on April 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:30 AM on April 1, 2010 :
Ummm –Fencer –how many times would you like me to repeat –we all have the same evidence –it exists real time –the way we interpret it differs.


Ummm, how many times have you been asked to provide a creationist interpretation of this paper:

Science, Vol 254, Issue 5031, 554-558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.



only to ignore it?

How about when you tried to offer a YEC 'interpretation' of the paper on the p450 allele mutation conferring DDT resistence to drosophila?  You tried to claim - based on an AiG hack piece - that thsi decreased their fitness so it couldn't really be a beneficial mutation, and when I provided documentation that it didn't - i.e., that your YEC interpretation was false, you tried to shift the issue to warfarin resistence in rats, making the same claim, which I was also able to refute?

Your 'interpretations' seem rather ad hoc and refutable.

Should tell the reader how legitimate your YEC-based 'interpretations' are.


Garbage Fencer –you obviously haven’t looked into this with any time and trouble. The assumptions are many and the same assumptions with all radiometric techniques, they are designed to get the ages to fall in the same range which of course has to be millions and thousands of millions of years otherwise evolution would fail at the get go.


You've made this charge before and your opnly support was a collection of decades old quotes of dubious accuracy, and you also claimed that the dates generated REALLY indicate a 10,000 year old earth, but you did not even try to support that.

How come?
You imply that YOU'VE looked into it quite a bit - it would appear that your 'research' in radiometric dating consists ENTIRELY of reading YEC websites.


Why stick with radiometric dating systems only?

What about fission track dating or even classical stratigraphy?
Surely in your in-depth research you've come across some decades-old quotes about them, too?

To demonstrate evolution, you’d need to demonstrate increasing information as required in order for bacteria to progressively turn into men, not corruption of information as overwhelmingly demonstrated by mutation.


And you wonder why we keep asking you about the things you assert - becaus eyou NEVER give us any reason to think you actually know what you are talking about.

DEFINE information AS IT PERTAINS to evolutionary genetics.

Your dictionary definition ala Meyer was cute but so vague anf irrelevant as to be utterly meaningless.
Put up or shut up.

If you are trying to find out things about the natural world I can't think of a better system


Unless the peer review system is heavily weighted with DODOs (Darwin only Darwin only) in which case any slight whiff of dissent will be heavily frowned upon and your name will be added to the DODO hit list to be watched carefully for revolutionary tendencies which will not be tolerated at any cost.
We all get to stagnate in science thanks to your blindness.But we'll carry on piling on the pressure till your nonsense falls apart all on its own via the multiplication of contradictions.  

It’s a real sad system – you might just as well be in communist Russia before the iron curtain was torn down –so seriously do they take disagreement.


So, what is the excuse for no scientific research papers being published in your own journals, where the reviewers are all ID-advocates fo YECs?

Like here, for example.

A journal set up by ID guru Bill Dembski - an interdisciplinary journal at that - and it hasn't even been published in 5 years.


Facts that are based upon assumptions.
Like ERVs and pseudogenes right?


Yes exactly! You’re learning fast. Both concepts are based on the assumption that evolution has happened and that the genome is littered with refuse from millennia of evolutionary experiments when, in fact, it is now evident that the genome is more than likely 100% functional (as creationists predicted it would be since it was created by an intelligence)

You've made that assertion before, too.

Pity that it is clearly not true.

Mice thrive without 'junk DNA'
20/10/04. By the DOE Joint Genome Institute

Researchers have deleted 3 per cent of the mouse genome, but the mice show no apparent ill effects.



Evolutionary science has been holding back genetics by virtue of their DODO blinker system.


Another stupid charge by those who sit on the sidelines playing Monday morning quarterback...

Was it a creationsit that discovered regulatory sequence?  Was Emil Zuckerkandl a creationist?




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:27 AM on April 2, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
You say you present evidence, but you don't.  


You see the evidence but you claim it means nothing no matter how contrary it might be to your position.

So, what is the excuse for no scientific research papers being published in your own journals, where the reviewers are all ID-advocates fo YECs?


What is an ID advocate for YECs?
Scientific research papers are published all the time in our own journals -are you saying they are empty of content OR do you just not like the content?

Ummm, how many times have you been asked to provide a creationist interpretation of this paper:

Science, Vol 254, Issue 5031, 554-558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

only to ignore it?


Our problem with phylogenetic trees is that you don't know that the parts on the tree are related by evolution rather than by creation -you assume it -a circular argument.

I have no problem with your rats which are quite obviously related so I have no comment.

It's the placing of things like rats and bats and apes and man in a relationship tree that I have a problem with since you are quite clearly using circular reasoning.

You tried to claim - based on an AiG hack piece - that thsi decreased their fitness so it couldn't really be a beneficial mutation, and when I provided documentation that it didn't - i.e., that your YEC interpretation was false, you tried to shift the issue to warfarin resistence in rats, making the same claim, which I was also able to refute?


And you quite obviously have trouble with reading and comprehension.

You've made this charge before and your opnly support was a collection of decades old quotes of dubious accuracy, and you also claimed that the dates generated REALLY indicate a 10,000 year old earth, but you did not even try to support that.


Again your comprehension of my argument is abysmal.

Here is my problem with radiometric dating:

A Christian Response To Radiometric Dating

and I never said radiometric dating actually gives dates of thousands of years. Your whole post seems to be a propoganda piece rather than a serious intellectual criticism - as usual.

It is obviously because you are a career evolutionist that you are so determined to denigrate everything opposed to your position - by fair means or foul.

I recommend that you get an honest job and preferably jump ship now before you are sunk.











(Edited by Lester10 4/4/2010 at 03:53 AM).


-------
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: 03:48 AM on April 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Quote from Lester10 at 03:48 AM on April 4, 2010 :
Derwood
You say you present evidence, but you don't.  


You see the evidence but you claim it means nothing no matter how contrary it might be to your position.


I cannot claim such things when I have been presented nothgin of substance.


So, what is the excuse for no scientific research papers being published in your own journals, where the reviewers are all ID-advocates fo YECs?


What is an ID advocate for YECs?


A typo - should have been "or".

But nice how you totally ignored the point, which you do so often and so transparently.


Scientific research papers are published all the time in our own journals -are you saying they are empty of content OR do you just not like the content?



PSCID has not been published in 5 years.

The 'original' research published in your own journals is constrained by oaths and requirements that nothign published will ever contradict scripture.  And you want to accuse US of having blinders on.  I have already documented the shenanigans engaged in by YEC 'scientists' - I donot like the content when it is essentially fruadulent.


Ummm, how many times have you been asked to provide a creationist interpretation of this paper:

Science, Vol 254, Issue 5031, 554-558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

only to ignore it?


Our problem with phylogenetic trees is that you don't know that the parts on the tree are related by evolution rather than by creation -you assume it -a circular argument.


So, your interpretation is to not even read it and simply spout idiotic hackneyed missives.

Pity that someone with a science-related doctorate cannot actually understand scientific papers.  


I have no problem with your rats which are quite obviously related so I have no comment.


More evidence that you did not read the article.  You people are afraid of science.


It's the placing of things like rats and bats and apes and man in a relationship tree that I have a problem with since you are quite clearly using circular reasoning.

You have a problem with it because of your unyielding devotion to an ancient superstition.  You blow off evidence by appending unwarranted labels to evidence that you do not understand.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:20 AM on April 6, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:48 AM on April 4, 2010 :
You've made this charge before and your only support was a collection of decades old quotes of dubious accuracy, and you also claimed that the dates generated REALLY indicate a 10,000 year old earth, but you did not even try to support that.


Again your comprehension of my argument is abysmal.

Here is my problem with radiometric dating:

A Christian Response To Radiometric Dating


You wrote that?

If not, then it is not YOUR 'problem', is it?
Not that it matters - it is all 'it doesn't support Scripture!' garbage.

and I never said radiometric dating actually gives dates of thousands of years. Your whole post seems to be a propoganda piece rather than a serious intellectual criticism - as usual.


You are an incredibly bad liar - that or an incredibly stupid person:


I do wonder though - are there ANY empirical dating methods that indicate an earth or universe in the 10,000 year range?
LESTER:

Yes I believe most of them come out in this range but evolutionists prefer radiometric dating methods for obvious reasons.


I think you are just a pathetic liar.  I mean, if I had ever claimed something so completely untrue, and easily demonstrably so, I would probably lie about it, too.  Unless, of course, I had made the claim in writing within the last few weeks such that it can be found and shown to all, demonstrating how stupid I am and how much of a liar I feel the need to be to prop up my pathetic religion.

So, are you going to provide EVIDENCE that - what was it you wrote?  Ah yes - "most of them [dating techniques] come out in this range [10,000 year old earth]" or are you going to admit you just don't have any idea what you are talking about and blurted that out to prop up your silly beliefs?

My bet, if your histroy is any quide, that you will either ignore it outright or try to weasel out of it all somehow.


By the way - you would have to have presented something worthy of serious intellectual response in order to get one.

It is obviously because you are a career evolutionist that you are so determined to denigrate everything opposed to your position - by fair means or foul.


At least I don't write really, really STUPID things and then lie about them later to prop up my religion, like you do.



I recommend that you get an honest job and preferably jump ship now before you are sunk.


I recommend you throw out that useless 'degree' you claim to have - it is clearly worthless - and actually reada book NOT written by some hack with a religion to protect.

And stop relying on those people - you claim a doctorate yet cannot cob together a single 'argument' of your own.  Pathetic.


(Edited by derwood 4/9/2010 at 2:17 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 05:27 AM on April 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Isn't it cute how 'doc' lester runs off so often...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:16 PM on April 9, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm still waiting for aPP to present at least a single logical fallacy, or admit that he was mistaken or bluffing.


-------
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: 08:58 AM on April 13, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The logical fallacy is that the odds of evolution being true are so ridiculously unbelievable that it cannot be considered fact.

The logical fallacy is that we have no true proof of evolution, merely guesses, and yet it is still shown as fact in our schools.

Several problems with Evolution:

1. It diminishes Human significance.

Now a lot of people want to say we are just a highly evolved animal.  Now seriously, the smartest animals in the world can learn a few tasks in their lifetime.  We can speak in multiple languages, we build computers, we are superior in every mental capacity and in many physical ones as well.  We are so far ahead of anything else in existence that to say we are like them seems pretty far fetched to me.

Now Sure creationism diminishes Human significance too, but in a different way that I suppose would be pointless to write a whole paragraph on, so ask if you want details.

2.  It pretends to be a true science.

The nature of true science:

A. Has Integrity.  It is dependable and trustworthy.
B. it is Testable.  It can be measured and verified.
C. It is Repeatable.  Should be able to be duplicated.

Evolution has none of these marks, and so rather than a scientific belief, it is actually much closer to a type of religion.

It is very much brainwashed into our culture as pure fact when there are no pure facts to support it.  That is very illogical in my opinion and in many others.

By the way, there is no recorded evidence of evolution ever occurring.  We have not found any skeletal proofs that are enough to conclude anything.  Evolution has never happened that we know of.  But the biggest names in science say it must have... so...

3. Evolution cannot answer the very important question "how?".

Evolution cannot and will not ever explain the true origins of the universe.  Since evolution cannot define the origins of the universe, that would also make everything after that be seemingly uncertain, particularly since they lack facts that say evolution has ever occurred.

4.  It hides behind excuses.

In attempts to try to answer questions like "Where did the matter come from in the first place?"  they say things like "Well Matter must be eternal."

this is but one of the many many many excuses that they hide behind.  Now sure, I can't prove that matter isn't eternal.  However, since they have no proof or even logical reason to conclude such things, it really makes these types of arguments very close minded.



And no you guys, I won't be considering articles written by Evolutionist Professors proof, nor pictures... so please don't bother to post them as it makes reading your replies require a lot more scrolling.

No Logical fallacies with believing in Evolution and having it taught as fact when there truly is no fact to it?

Evolution is dripping with flaws and fallacies and errors in every way imaginable.

As I have said before, Creationism is far less ridiculous and flawed.

So if you think believing in God is ridiculous... you should realize that Evolution requires much more faith to believe in.

Sometimes I wonder what made evolution catch on.  Why it became so popular...  Maybe it was just the right belief given to the right people at the right time.  Maybe it was just believable enough to catch on at the time.  Perhaps it hit a soft spot with several high end scientists.  I don't know.  All I know is that Evolution is ridiculously hard to believe the moment you start to ask questions about it.


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 03:07 AM on April 15, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello aPP. I'm glad you tried to be civil.
aPassionatePlayer
The logical fallacy is that the odds of evolution being true are so ridiculously unbelievable that it cannot be considered fact.
OK, that's not a logical fallacy.

It might be a mistake, but no logical fallacy.

I'm sorry but it appears to be the case that you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

Here's the wiki article on fallacies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Here's a list of fallacious arguments.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

I'm sure you'll find something that you'll think qualifies as a logical fallacy in Evolution if you read that, but you haven't so far.

If you want to discuss those ridiculous odds tell us all about them in another thread.

The logical fallacy is that we have no true proof of evolution, merely guesses, and yet it is still shown as fact in our schools.
Again, that's not a logical fallacy.

Several problems with Evolution:
OK, no problem. We can discuss that. But bear in mind that this thread was about logical fallacies.

If you won't present any, please, take it back because it's the honest thing to do.
Admitting a mistake doesn't make you weak.

1. It diminishes Human significance.
Two fallacies: Appeal to emotion and red herring.

If facts diminish human significance to you, that's your problem. Deal with it the best you can, but please, no fallacies.

Now a lot of people want to say we are just a highly evolved animal.
I don't know about "just", but (i'm sorry again but) you sound like you don't understand Evolution.

There's no measure of evolution. It's not like a battery that can be charged. There is no "top" of the tree. There is no "highly".

If you measure it in reproductive terms we're quite far from "highly evolved".

Now seriously, the smartest animals in the world can learn a few tasks in their lifetime.
Humans? Yeah, they can.
We can speak in multiple languages,
Do you?
we build computers,
Do you?
we are superior in every mental capacity and in many physical ones as well.
Not true.

Look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8

Remember: Admitting a mistake doesn't make you look weak.

And those "many physical ones" aren't even worth mentioning.

Unlike the majority of animals we can't fly.

We are so far ahead of anything else in existence
That's opinion. And whimsical parameters.
that to say we are like them seems pretty far fetched to me.
Fallacy: argument from personal incredulity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

You see? You indulge in fallacies while accusing us of doing so.

Now Sure creationism diminishes Human significance too,
When talking Science and logic (which we're supposed to be doing), i don't really care.
but in a different way that I suppose would be pointless to write a whole paragraph on, so ask if you want details.
Thanks, but no. Let's talk facts and logic.

2.  It pretends to be a true science.

The nature of true science:

A. Has Integrity.  It is dependable and trustworthy.
B. it is Testable.  It can be measured and verified.
C. It is Repeatable.  Should be able to be duplicated.

Evolution has none of these marks, and so rather than a scientific belief, it is actually much closer to a type of religion.
How do you propose we demonstrate that you're wrong? What would count?

Evolution is repeatable (it happens all the time), verifiable (and verified countless times), and very trustworthy. Since i'm not supporting it right now you might reply "blah blah blah", as i often do. But instead of that start a thread for each "weak spot" you think Evolution has.

When i assume Evolution is right i make good predictions, and "A" is fulfilled. Every time my prediction is right "B" is fulfilled. Since i've done it multiple times "C" is fulfilled.

It is very much brainwashed into our culture as pure fact when there are no pure facts to support it.
You see, it's quite easy denying everything.

We have posted countless facts that support Evolution. Why don't you check and see if you find any problems with them?

That is very illogical in my opinion and in many others.
I don't see logic there.

Have you studied logic?

By the way, there is no recorded evidence of evolution ever occurring.
Wrong, sir. It happens all the time, everywhere.

Evolution: variation in the frequencies of alleles in reproductive populations.

It's a fact.

Creationists prefer to call that "adaptation" or "variation", but it's Evolution.

If you want to make the distinction between "micro" and "macro", there's a thread devoted to it.

We have not found any skeletal proofs that are enough to conclude anything.
Remember: No proofs in Science.

Can you explain this?


I'm sure you'll think some of them are "fully apes" and the rest are "fully human", but where would you draw the line?

I wouldn't even try, but since you believe there's a distinction, well where is it?

Let me warn you that not even the leading creationists ever could.


Evolution has never happened that we know of.
I don't know who is "we", but leave me out of it.

It happens all the time.

But the biggest names in science say it must have... so...
No "must". Has. Does. Will. Always. It has been observed and will always be observed. Life changes all the time.

3. Evolution cannot answer the very important question "how?".

Evolution cannot and will not ever explain the true origins of the universe.
Neither can the Theory of Gravity. Or Cell Theory.
Since evolution cannot define the origins of the universe, that would also make everything after that be seemingly uncertain, particularly since they lack facts that say evolution has ever occurred.
Since Cell Theory can't explain the "true" origins of the Universe then it's uncertain that you're made of cells. Would you agree?

Here's your mistake: We have a theory that explains ONE thing you think your god did, then you think it must explain all of it.

The ToE isn't competing with Yahweh. Only explaining the fact of the diversification of life.

4.  It hides behind excuses.

In attempts to try to answer questions like "Where did the matter come from in the first place?"  they say things like "Well Matter must be eternal."
Man, you have no idea of what you're talking about. I'm trying to be civil here, but you just don't have a clue.

If matter came from the fart of an interdimensional leprechaun the ToE has no problem. If it was created by your very god the ToE has no problem.

You just constantly confound the ToE and add elements that are simply not there.

this is but one of the many many many excuses that they hide behind.
The ToE doesn't say or imply such a thing. Sorry, but it doesn't. I don't know what else to tell you... You're imagining things.

Now sure, I can't prove that matter isn't eternal.
When discussing Evolution you shouldn't even care.
However, since they have no proof or even logical reason to conclude such things, it really makes these types of arguments very close minded.
"They"?

I thought you were talking about the ToE.

And no you guys, I won't be considering articles written by Evolutionist Professors proof, nor pictures...
Nor any form of evidence.
so please don't bother to post them as it makes reading your replies require a lot more scrolling.
Does it make you proud, rejecting evidence?

No Logical fallacies with believing in Evolution and having it taught as fact when there truly is no fact to it?
If you think you found one, name it. I gave you an article and a list. Find one and demonstrate how it applies.

Evolution is dripping with flaws and fallacies and errors in every way imaginable.
I can imagine several ways in which it doesn't.
As I have said before, Creationism is far less ridiculous and flawed.
If you mean "biblical creationism", it has a major flaw: it's impossible.

How many elephants did they stack in the ark? We know of 160 species.

So if you think believing in God is ridiculous...
God is my certainty. We're talking about Evolution.

If by "god" you mean "Yahweh", make it clear.
you should realize that Evolution requires much more faith to believe in.
We've heard that tons of times. Nobody ever tried to back it up though.

Sometimes I wonder what made evolution catch on.
The evidences that you dismiss by scrolling down.
Why it became so popular...
Facts.
Maybe it was just the right belief given to the right people at the right time.  Maybe it was just believable enough to catch on at the time.  Perhaps it hit a soft spot with several high end scientists.  I don't know.  All I know is that Evolution is ridiculously hard to believe the moment you start to ask questions about it.
OK, i'm gonna ignore that.

I pointed out some mistakes in your argument, aPP. Please, refute me or admit them. ^_^


(Edited by wisp 4/15/2010 at 08:41 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: 06:56 AM on April 15, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 03:07 AM on April 15, 2010 :
The logical fallacy is that the odds of evolution being true are so ridiculously unbelievable that it cannot be considered fact.


Tell us all about it.

Show us your math.


 All I know is that Evolution is ridiculously hard to believe the moment you start to ask questions about it.

Lots of things are hard to believe when you possess invincible ignorance on the subject.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:14 AM on April 15, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't exactly consider those pictures proof... nor does anyone really except evolutionists... so like I said, posting them is pointless.

Look at my previous posts if you want to see how ridiculous the odds are.  It's past the googolplex for certain, which is far past what is scientifically considered impossible.

Sorry, but an ape that can memorize patterns of fairly simple numbers is not overly astounding for a person.  Unless you mean a child of the age of the chimp, then sure that's pretty astonishing.

Plus, it should be noted that the chimp was taught to do this over a long period of time by humans.  The chimp would never have figured anything near so complex on his own quite obviously.  Fairly impressive accomplishment for an animal though I must admit.

None of your facts meet my requirements.  Pictures of deformed skeletons?  First off, many diseases/deformities can do the skulls, but given that you could prove that wasn't it...  It's not repeatable.  You can't prove evolution is occurring right now.  So you don't have any actual scientific proof.

That alone makes anything else you have not believable simply because it's rooted in things you cannot prove.

You say you have evidence?  Meet the required standard of what evidence actually is, then we can talk about it.  Until then, you don't have anything that will make Evolution fact.

If you want a logical fallacy in evolution, that would be simply that it's based upon guesses.  That's extremely illogical, it's not scientific, and it isn't going to last through testing.

that is a fallacy/void in the logic of evolution.  Now if you want to be picky and say that it's not actually a fallacy, it's merely illogical, then be my guest.

when I said many physical ones I meant things like thumbs, etc.  Not that that's relevant though.

If I make a mistake I admit it.  I just tend to as rarely as possible make them public due to being careful with what I present.  After all, you guys would love to jump me at the first chance you get right?  Because let's be honest, you don't read these actually thinking I could be right.  You read them in hopes (whether knowingly or subconciously) that I will make a big mistake so you can blow me out of the water and finally prove me wrong.  *shrug* that's why I don't keep up with this forum that much.  I am never going to convince any of you who are fighting with me.  I stay mostly because creationists in general lose fights against evolutionists due to lack of knowledge in debates.

Yes I have studied logic heavily.  *shrug* I like logical thinking.  Probably part of my INTJ related personality.

The funny thing about debates of Creationists vs Evolutionists usually goes like this.

E.  I have proof!
C. That's not proof.
E. Yes it is.
C. No, it really isn't.
E. Well you don't have proof either.
C. I suppose I don't.
E. Then I must be right.

In a nutshell, that's how evolutionists seem to debate.  Not so bluntly or stupidly as that might present it to seem, but nevertheless, that's actually what this entire thread is and has been.

How do I suggest you prove me wrong?  You give me actual evidence.  You cannot do so, else you would have long ago.

So let's see here... You have no proof... I have no proof...  Ours our both illogical to the point of it being personal opinion as to which is true.

We are at an impasse.

(Edited by aPassionatePlayer 4/15/2010 at 4:57 PM).


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 4:52 PM on April 15, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

APP -

How old do you think the earth is?  

Firstly, there is ample evidence outside of biology that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.   And the universe is older than that - current evidence points to about 13 billion years.  The evidence comes from diverse fields of study - from geology to physics to cosmology.

Do you disagree with that?  If so, why?  If you do agree with an earth billions of years old, then we'll move on to the next question.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:54 PM on April 15, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 03:07 AM on April 15, 2010 :
The logical fallacy is that the odds of evolution being true are so ridiculously unbelievable that it cannot be considered fact.


What is a scientific fact?

The logical fallacy is that we have no true proof of evolution, merely guesses, and yet it is still shown as fact in our schools.


What do you mean by "true proof"? "Proof" just isn't in science. Maybe you are using proof in the every-day sense, but using it like that here is misleading.

Several problems with Evolution:

1. It diminishes Human significance.


Just because an idea doesn't put humanity on a pedestal, or perhaps in this case ripping out the pedestal underneath Man, doesn't mean that it can't be correct. People used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe, putting the stars, planets and Sun in rotation around the Earth; putting humanity on a celestial pedestal. By showing that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system diminished human significance of that time, and it diminished even further when astronomy showed us that the Sun wasn't the center of the galaxy, nor our galaxy the center of the universe; and it may be that our universe is only but one in a myriad of universes. Would you say that the heliocentric theory is false via your logical fallacy that it "diminishes Human significance"?

Reality doesn't conform to our notion of reality, it is up to us to create a working model of reality. And sometimes that means getting rid of narcissistic notions about our place in cosmos.

Now a lot of people want to say we are just a highly evolved animal.  Now seriously, the smartest animals in the world can learn a few tasks in their lifetime.  We can speak in multiple languages, we build computers, we are superior in every mental capacity and in many physical ones as well.  We are so far ahead of anything else in existence that to say we are like them seems pretty far fetched to me.


Animals have many things that are essentially just primitive forms of things we have come up with. I'm surprised you bring up physical superiority; I have never thought of humans as physically superior. I assure you a healthy adult chimpanzee is stronger than you.

Here is a professional Sumo Wrestler playing tug of war with an orangutan half his weight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFMpWm6ECgQ

The orangutan won.

While you may say we are ahead of animals mentally, as shown by Wisp, we are not ahead in every mental capacity. And even when we are "superior", it is also present in at least one other species in a less sophisticated way. Even our famed morality is present in many organisms.
To a lesser degree no doubt, but there nonetheless.

Even our brain isn't that different than a chimps. Yes, our frontal lobe is enlarged, but there is no area of the brain that is absent in a chimps.

I know I'm writing a lot (more than I originally intended anyway), but I do think this should be addressed. You mentioned computers, and I think it is important to point out that many things that show our 'superior' intelligence is only possible due to our ability to write. Even 100 years ago we couldn't build what we would call a computer. But I doubt you would say humanity has increased in intelligence in any significant way from 100 years ago. Without our ability to read and write to add on to the level of knowledge generation after generation, our supposed higher intelligence seems less marvelous. If our collective knowledge was somehow forgotten we would be back in the stone age, and our superior mental ability would no longer look so displaced with the rest of the animal kingdom.  

Now Sure creationism diminishes Human significance too, but in a different way that I suppose would be pointless to write a whole paragraph on, so ask if you want details.


Could you just highlight some of the main points?

2.  It pretends to be a true science.

The nature of true science:

A. Has Integrity.  It is dependable and trustworthy.
B. it is Testable.  It can be measured and verified.
C. It is Repeatable.  Should be able to be duplicated.


Well, evolution says that we should see a smooth gradient of transitional fossils in the fossil record. So basically this means that if you can find an out of place fossil, evolution would be in trouble. So, what is an out of place fossil? A good example would be finding a bunny in the Cambrian strata. In fact, every single time someone digs up a fossil it could potentially become problematic for evolution.

In this way evolution is testable/falsifiable and very repeatable. And unless you can show significant fraud, it would be quite trustworthy and it would have integrity.

Evolution has none of these marks, and so rather than a scientific belief, it is actually much closer to a type of religion.


Evolution is nothing like a religion. I even made a thread about this very thing a while back. http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=49976

An excerpt of the OP: "There is no common definition of religion, but at it's most basic a religion must have something to do with the supernatural, have rituals, mythology/sacred or holy writings/scripture, and in some way bind all members to the supernatural element it presents."

Can you show how evolution does anything characteristic of religion only, or can you provide a more accurate description of religion and show how evolution fits in?

By the way, there is no recorded evidence of evolution ever occurring.  We have not found any skeletal proofs that are enough to conclude anything.  Evolution has never happened that we know of.  But the biggest names in science say it must have... so...


What about whale evolution? I know you don't like pics, but you don't even have to look at this as proof for evolution, I don't even want you to even look at it that way. All I want you to do is just explain how this doesn't show a smooth transition from one form to another.



3. Evolution cannot answer the very important question "how?".


Um, actually it already has. The "how" to evolution is basically mutation plus natural selection.

Evolution cannot and will not ever explain the true origins of the universe.  Since evolution cannot define the origins of the universe, that would also make everything after that be seemingly uncertain, particularly since they lack facts that say evolution has ever occurred.


Okay, evolution was never meant to explain the origins of the universe, totally different discipline (cosmology). In science a theory explains a specific set of observations (and sometimes laws). Evolution attempts to explain the diversity and unity of life. It has nothing to do with how the universe started, where the mass/energy came from, how the Earth, Sun and Moon formed, or even how life originated on Earth. So this "logical fallacy" of evolution really is nothing but your lack of understanding of how science works. I know it isn't the most delightful thing to hear, but everyone is ignorant on many things, and it is important to realize our limits, even when it isn't convenient.

What do you think evolution is? What do you mean when you say evolution?

If you want to have a conversation on the origins of the universe I would be happy to have it (and I think others would as well). Just start it up and I'll respond when I can.

4.  It hides behind excuses.

In attempts to try to answer questions like "Where did the matter come from in the first place?"  they say things like "Well Matter must be eternal."

this is but one of the many many many excuses that they hide behind.  Now sure, I can't prove that matter isn't eternal.  However, since they have no proof or even logical reason to conclude such things, it really makes these types of arguments very close minded.


The idea that matter is eternal comes from the first law of thermodynamics: 'matter/energy can't be created or destroyed, only change forms.' And outside of weird particle physics (like virtual particles), this seems to work universally without exception.

The bottom line is this: we know that we are here, and how matter and life got here is irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution; which is solely about how life diversifies once life is already here.

And no you guys, I won't be considering articles written by Evolutionist Professors proof, nor pictures... so please don't bother to post them as it makes reading your replies require a lot more scrolling.


Or you can learn what is being said, and based on what is being said say, 'hey, X, Y, and Z doesn't make any sense because of V, W, and T. And they are wrong about Q, R, and P because of N, E, and G.'

So if you think believing in God is ridiculous... you should realize that Evolution requires much more faith to believe in.


Evolution and God are not antithetical to each other. This is easily demonstrated as ruffly 45% of all natural scientists (biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy etc.) believe in a God, and over 99% of them accept evolution as a fact.


-------
"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: 8:50 PM on April 15, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe the earth to be somewhere between 6 to 14 thousand years old.

Other evidence showing otherwise has been proven again and again to be quite unreliable as it's not possible to prove many dating methods.

You can't prove a dating method to be firm until you can repeat the process over and over again.  Since we aren't going to be around for millions of years, we can't really prove that our dating works now can we?

Besides, people claim that the earth is really old all the time.  They say that the grand canyon must have taken thousands, possibly millions, of years to form.  Then a smaller, but very similar version of the Grand Canyon popped up after Mt. St. Helens in days... Experts can look at photos side by side and not be able to tell a difference... Anyways, the point is that it's impossible to prove dating.


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 9:30 PM on April 15, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

aPassionatePlayer
I don't exactly consider those pictures proof...
Neither do i.

No proofs in Science. Remember?

I have pointed this out to you several times already.

nor does anyone really except evolutionists...
No, they're not proof. Just evidence.

Instead of saying "No, they're not" you have to give an alternate explanation.

so like I said, posting them is pointless.
Like i said, you don't care about evidence.

Look at my previous posts if you want to see how ridiculous the odds are.
No. Your posts only show your claim, and no facts.
It's past the googolplex for certain,
See? That's a claim.
which is far past what is scientifically considered impossible.
Will you support that claim? Can you?

we are superior in every mental capacity and in many physical ones as well.
Not true.

Look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8
Sorry,
Don't be.
but an ape that can memorize patterns of fairly simple numbers is not overly astounding for a person.
Fallacy: "red herring" with a touch of "moving the goalpost".

You said that we are superior in every mental capacity, and i showed you otherwise. It's not about "astounding".

Orangutans are far better than us in 3D spacial recognition (which they use in jungle labyrinths of trees).

APP, being wrong is not the end of the world.

Unless you mean a child of the age of the chimp, then sure that's pretty astonishing.
They outperform us in a mental ability. That's it. That's what you said it didn't happen. That's your mistake.

Plus, it should be noted that the chimp was taught to do this over a long period of time by humans.
Are you saying that those humans outperform them?

They don't, by the way.

Can you do it? Wanna try? How much time you think you'd need?

The chimp would never have figured anything near so complex on his own quite obviously.
Fallacy: red herring.

This is not about figuring things out. This is about outperforming humans in a mental task.
Fairly impressive accomplishment for an animal though I must admit.
Nevermind that. The important thing is that they outperform us in a mental task.

So you're not an animal?

Define "animal".

And if you think you're not an ape then define "ape".

I bet you can't.

None of your facts meet my requirements.
Requirements for what? You don't even know what the subject is.

Let me remind you: You said we're superior in every mental capacity. We're not.

Now what?

Pictures of deformed skeletons?  First off, many diseases/deformities can do the skulls, but given that you could prove that wasn't it...  It's not repeatable.
Remember: No proof in Science.

So diseases made humans look like other apes... And perhaps other deformities made some other apes look human...

That would explain the discrepancies between different creationists when deciding which ones are humans and which ones are not.

We can't prove it didn't happen, right?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you won't present it there's no reason to pay any attention to it.

You can't prove evolution is occurring right now. So you don't have any actual scientific proof.
Man... You just won't read...

"Scientific proof" doesn't exist.

That alone makes anything else you have not believable simply because it's rooted in things you cannot prove.
You can't prove the Earth is round either. And yet assuming it is very useful.

You say you have evidence?
Tons.
Meet the required standard of what evidence actually is, then we can talk about it.
YOUR requirements?
Until then, you don't have anything that will make Evolution fact.
What about the fact that things evolve?


If you want a logical fallacy in evolution, that would be simply that it's based upon guesses.
What's the name of that fallacy? I don't know it.
That's extremely illogical, it's not scientific, and it isn't going to last through testing.
We've heard that before. That claim is getting quite old.

Can you give us a deadline after which you'll admit you were wrong?

that is a fallacy/void in the logic of evolution.
Sometimes it looks like you're joking.

I gave you a list of logical fallacies. Show us at least one.

You haven't shown us that you know anything about the logic of Evolution. You said something about an atom sized giraffe in the Big Bang... You don't know what Evolution actually says. So how could you point to any fallacies?

Now if you want to be picky and say that it's not actually a fallacy, it's merely illogical, then be my guest.
No. A mistake at best. But you haven't shown us any yet.

And, until you learn what Evolution is about, my bet is you'll never be able to.

when I said many physical ones I meant things like thumbs, etc.  Not that that's relevant though.
Sorry, i don't understand.

If I make a mistake I admit it.
You made one about mental abilities. You keep making the same one about "scientific proof".
I just tend to as rarely as possible make them public due to being careful with what I present.
From my perspective it looks like you're not qualified to see your own mistakes.
After all, you guys would love to jump me at the first chance you get right?
If you made a mistake?

You make plenty. I show them to you. You ignore most of them.

Because let's be honest, you don't read these actually thinking I could be right.
Not really, no.
You read them in hopes (whether knowingly or subconciously) that I will make a big mistake so you can blow me out of the water and finally prove me wrong.
I hope you start being right about SOMETHING for a change... I love saying "you're right". That's when you can start building some understanding.  *shrug*
that's why I don't keep up with this forum that much.
It's not about you.

It's about knowledge and intellectual honesty. You don't show much of any of them. I hope i'm wrong about intellectual honesty, but the other one is pretty clear.
I am never going to convince any of you who are fighting with me.
If you're intellectually honest no fight is necessary.

I tend not to fight the honest. You can reason with an honest person.

I stay mostly because creationists in general lose fights against evolutionists due to lack of knowledge in debates.
Creationists (all of them) are creationist due to lack of knowledge or lots of faith.

But not the leading ones. They're dishonest.

Yes I have studied logic heavily.  *shrug* I like logical thinking.  Probably part of my INTJ related personality.
Then why is it that you've not presented a single syllogism?

If you want to show Evolution is illogical, well show us you know the logic of Evolution! If you indulge in a straw man, then you lose.

Try doing that avoiding straw men, please.

The funny thing about debates of Creationists vs Evolutionists usually goes like this.

E.  I have proof!
C. That's not proof.
E. Yes it is.
C. No, it really isn't.
E. Well you don't have proof either.
C. I suppose I don't.
E. Then I must be right.
I'd never say i have "proof", except about some mathematical elements of Evolution.

We say we have evidence. And that is objectively right.
What makes it objective? Predictions.

In a nutshell, that's how evolutionists seem to debate.
I showed you gradual skulls from clearly non human to clearly human. That's evidence that gradual steps have occurred.

If you think it's not, then give me an alternative explanation.
If your alternative explanation is "deformities", then you'll have to explain why they happen along the lines predicted by Evolution, and in the right timescales too.

Not so bluntly or stupidly as that might present it to seem, but nevertheless, that's actually what this entire thread is and has been.
Your alternative explanation seems far fetched. There is a simpler and more parsimonious one: those skulls are exactly what they appear to be.

How do I suggest you prove me wrong?  You give me actual evidence.
What would convince you?
You cannot do so, else you would have long ago.
Evidence for what? For change in the allele frequencies in reproductive populations? Would you be satisfied if we show it to you?



-------
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: 10:16 PM on April 15, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

aPassionatePlayer
I believe the earth to be somewhere between 6 to 14 thousand years old.
Thanks. That's good to know. It's easier to find arguments when you know what's being proposed from the other side.

Other evidence showing otherwise has been proven again and again to be quite unreliable as it's not possible to prove many dating methods.

You can't prove a dating method to be firm until you can repeat the process over and over again.  Since we aren't going to be around for millions of years, we can't really prove that our dating works now can we?
We couldn't prove them even if we were around for millions of years.

Proof exists only in Mathematics or Logic. Not in Science.

Man, please, pay attention. We've told you this over and over again.

Of course we can't prove any fact. We haven't proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun either. Data indicates it does though. Very consistently. It's the same with radiometric methods.

Anyways, the point is that it's impossible to prove dating.
It's impossible to prove that you're made of cells too. It's impossible to prove that you exist.



-------
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: 10:21 PM on April 15, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - good video on the chimp vs man memory.  Very impressive.

Regarding APP notion that evolution has a very low probability of happening - the probability is actually equal to 1 (100%) because it does indeed has happened and is happening.

What if everyone in the world was given a unique lotto number, say from 1 through 6 billion, or so.  Now consider that 1 winning number is drawn from the batch of 6 billion numbers, and the winner wins a ZORK!  The odds of me or you winning are so remotely tiny as to be near zero, but not quite zero.  However, the probability that SOMEONE will win is 1 (100 %).  

Evolution is like that.  There are an infinite number of possibilities, an infinite number of paths it can follow.  But the odds it WILL take a path is equal to 1 (100 %).  As Wisp indicated in an example once - the odds of any one of us being born is infinitestimally tiny - as near to zero as one can imagine.  

Consider:  
- what if our earliest chordata ancestor didn't quite make it, couldn't quite compete against the other critters out there?  Vertebrates would most likely not have developed.

- What if the catastrophe that occurred 65 million years ago hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs?  Mammals probably would have remained in a minor role.

- What if our sparse hominid ancestors hadn't managed to survive?

- Then what are the odds of any one person being born amid the uncountable number of possibilites of gamete combinations?  Pretty damn near zero!

HOWEVER, here we are!  Something had to happen.  The probability of that something happening is 1 (100 %).  But for every SOMETHING that did happen, there are an infinite number of things that did NOT happen.

You get my drift?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:23 AM on April 16, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I get your "drift", I merely disagree with it.

The odds of evolution are quite insane as anyone can tell, it really isn't up for debate whether or not it's a believable number.

But come now, even if you added the odds of evolution up to be 1 in a million, are you going to tell me that the 1 in a million chance happened twice for a male and a female at the same time?  They just happened to be compatible and happened to be in a situation where they somehow could/knew how to breed/survive?

Then on top of that, do you suggest this for all the animals we see today?  Are you willing to suggest that earth just happened to be habitable for whatever the requirements for these were?

Also, since when in history do we have evidence of something alive coming from something not?

Like I have said before, I require proof before I believe in evolution.  You don't have any, and thankfully admit that you never will.

It also seems somewhat strange to argue evolution so strongly...  We creationists argue ours for obvious reasons, but evolutionists truly have no reason to be right.  Why does it really matter if I believe in evolution to you?  It won't change anything?  Like Wisp seems to enjoy spending an hour writing me messages (which I barely read) full of bull crap, analyzing every word I say and often twisting any original meaning they had in them until he can make it an accusation of my lack of knowledge or intellect.  I stopped respecting his view some time ago.

Your "evidence" is pointless since it is subject to lack of facts... so you really can't prove what you believe in... yet you fight so strongly for it.  Sure creationism is that way too, but that's a different conversation.

Anyways, the idea of proof is impossible in science yes, but technically proof doesn't exist at all when it comes down to it.  1 + 1 = 2.  Why does it end up as 2?  Because the results show so?  Because logic tells us it must?  How can we be totally certain the results will always be 2?  How do we know that logic itself won't change?

So proof is actually a relative factor of which eventually boils down to personal opinion should you dig deep enough.

However that's a topic left best to philosophers I suppose.  Back to topic!

You don't have proof.

I don't have proof.

You're beliefs require a lot of faith.

Mine require a lot (although arguably less in personal opinion) as well.

So basically, this is a big argument over picky details that are irrelevant because in the grand scheme of things, no one can prove any of this.

We are at an impasse.

(Edited by aPassionatePlayer 4/16/2010 at 02:59 AM).


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 02:51 AM on April 16, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
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.