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
     Porkchop's doubts about whales
       What are the steps?

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

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way.

Your demand of perfection is just silly. There is no discussion, there is no argument.
There are several possible causes, and several possible ways for every little (or not so little) step. That's not a flaw in the theory in ANY way.

On the other hand, there is no way YOUR version could have happened. Now THAT's a flaw.

The problem isn't that you can't pinpoint a way it could have happened, but that it couldn't have happened.
You sound a little disconcerted by feeling the need to quickly point out that "my version" could never have happened.
Why 'disconcerted'?

What are the chances that you'll answer?

You don't sound too sure about your version otherwise you would not have given my version a mention
Why not?
( I didn't mention it.)
Of course you didn't.

You find the "argument by question" too practical. You wouldn't like to defend your own position. You know you couldn't.

You don't want to have to defend anything you say, so you say pretty little.


But since you did, why is it my way could not have happened?
First tell me your version (which will be impossible), and i'll tell you why.

Say something, for a change.

If you believe in the ark myth, and that new alleles don't appear, well there you go. There are too many alleles in most species.

If you believe that animals lived peacefully in the garden of Eden, well there you go. What did parasites live on?  


But chemicals  can self organize into complex life and the big bang can create matter from nothing (see 1st law of thermodynamics)
That's not about Evolution.

Even if you believe that some god or goddess created life, Evolution would still be a fact.

If the Big Bang was some god's Big Fart, Evolution would still be a fact.

You confound Evolution. You lose.


Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way.

Your demand of perfection is just silly. There is no discussion, there is no argument
What perfection am I demanding?
That we should know every step of the way with perfect detail.
I asked a simple quest about watching the evolution movie in fast-forward motion.
Hahaha! You see?
If we could, would we see elephants growing longer trunks out of no trunks with each offspring?
It depends on what you call "trunks". It depends on what you call "elephants".

I wouldn't call it an "elephant" if it had no trunk, probably. You seem to assume that, so your question is quite dumb.
Same for Giraffe necks?
Same dumbness.
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?



-------
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: 10:56 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, i got myself a new phrase for my signature.

Little by little we start knowing things about you. I know for sure now that you're not the director of Sea World.

Porkchop, could you suddenly start learning (w/camera effect of course)?



-------
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: 11:08 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 4:53 PM on February 25, 2010 :
You sound a little disconcerted by feeling the need to quickly point out that "my version" could never have happened. You don't sound too sure about your version otherwise you would not have given my version a mention ( I didn't mention it.)


If you really want to put the nail in Wisp's coffin of failing to defend his position, start a new thread of what you believe and why. And whenever he attacks your version you can simply inform him that this isn't the thread to do it in and that he's being off topic. And if he fails to comply you can always call him out on his own double standards and his hypocrisy. I hope that will be of help.  

But since you did, why is it my way could not have happened? But chemicals  can self organize into complex life and the big bang can create matter from nothing (see 1st law of thermodynamics)


I'd be happy to converse on those topics, and I have an itch that other members here would as well. But we don't want to derail this thread, as it was made for a very specific purpose and this would be grossly out of place. If you want you can create a thread for these concerns as well. Although if you want a very detailed discussion of either I suggest a thread for each.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:29 AM on February 26, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

good idea


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 11:01 AM on February 28, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, based on your other thread, your disbelief is based solely on the fact that you do not understand the evidence.  

You have certainly demonstrated that fact on this thread.


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:52 AM on February 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's fine, porkchop. But i don't get your signature.
Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way.
What?
That.
Are biologists lacking knowledge for mutation experiments to turn a species into another? This is no small step!
Lacking knowledge for mutation experiments... What does that mean?



-------
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: 2:47 PM on February 28, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just another demonstration that he doesn't understand the evidence.


-------
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: 2:49 PM on February 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He could at least understand his own questions.


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:15 PM on February 28, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if you believe that some god or goddess created life, Evolution would still be a fact.


It isn't even a good story, much less a fact Wisp. This 'fact' story is all propoganda  - it is supposed to convince people, by emphatic and determined repetition, that haven't heard that you can't 'prove' anything in science.

Evolutionists say that on the one hand and shout 'evolution is a fact' on the other hand. It's absurd.




-------
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: 03:54 AM on March 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if you believe that some god or goddess created life, Evolution would still be a fact.
It isn't even a good story, much less a fact Wisp.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
This 'fact' story is all propoganda
Blah blah blah blah blah.
 - it is supposed to convince people, by emphatic and determined repetition,
What about by investigation and peer reviewed articles?
that haven't heard that you can't 'prove' anything in science.
What does 'proving' have to do with anything?
Evolutionists say that on the one hand and shout 'evolution is a fact' on the other hand. It's absurd.
For those who don't understand the first thing about Science, yes it is.

Why do you mention Evolution? Do you think we talk about scientific facts only in Evolution? Do you think that we say that no hypothesis can be proved only in Evolution?

The contradiction exists only in your mind.

Go and find the definitions. They belong to Science in general, not to Evolution in particular.



-------
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: 04:09 AM on March 1, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Blah blah blah blah blah.


That’s good Wisp –your posts are becoming more interesting and certainly more readable.

What about by investigation and peer reviewed articles?


Investigation with a philosophical bias isn’t very helpful. There is only one possible answer when you exclude all other possibilities (apart from naturalistic expanations) a priori.

As for peer review, generally that is just the way ‘science’ manages to hang on to its old and worn naturalistic prejudices. No paradigm shift permitted if we can keep other feet firmly out of the door.

Any scientists desiring to challenge the old and worn paradigm have to write books to present their challenges. Oh my, now I remember, Darwin did that too!

What does 'proving' have to do with anything?


Well if you call something like evolution ‘fact’, you must have definitive proof. But science never has proof, it only has interpretations of the evidence so how can they call evolution ‘fact’?

Evolutionists say that on the one hand and shout 'evolution is a fact' on the other hand. It's absurd.
For those who don't understand the first thing about Science, yes it is.


Hahahaha! You crack me up Wisp. When you say something I don’t like, I’ll just say that you clearly don’t understand science.





 





-------
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: 06:29 AM on March 1, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:29 AM on March 1, 2010 :
As for peer review, generally that is just the way ‘science’ manages to hang on to its old and worn naturalistic prejudices. No paradigm shift permitted if we can keep other feet firmly out of the door.


So what do you propose that would be better to advance scientific knowledge other than those that know what they are doing to check, review, give feedback etc to submitted scientific papers?

Any scientists desiring to challenge the old and worn paradigm have to write books to present their challenges. Oh my, now I remember, Darwin did that too!


That is very true, but ultimately science goes where the evidence leads. The evidence supported Darwin in the end, so science as a whole accepted Darwin's theory of evolution and has since expanded on it.

Well if you call something like evolution ‘fact’, you must have definitive proof. But science never has proof, it only has interpretations of the evidence so how can they call evolution ‘fact’?


I normally like to believe what people tell me are true, or at least they perceive it to be true. But, are you sure you have a (real) doctorate in a science related field? "Fact" in science is essentially an observation. We observe that masses attract each other a multitude of times, therefore gravity is a fact. Similarly we have observe populations change in allele frequency, and even speciate, a multitude of times. Therefore evolution is 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: 5:01 PM on March 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
It isn't even a good story, much less a fact Wisp.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
That’s good Wisp –your posts are becoming more interesting and certainly more readable.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
What about by investigation and peer reviewed articles?
Investigation with a philosophical bias isn’t very helpful.
This is the bias: test for the testable.

That's it.
There is only one possible answer when you exclude all other possibilities (apart from naturalistic expanations) a priori.
Is that so?

Only one?

Well i agree.

Why is it just one? There could be dozens.

You said "naturalistic explanations", but the plural doesn't match with "only one possible answer".

On the other hand, when you bring up the untestable, the possibilities scale up to infinity. And their usefulness drops to zero. And their testability is null.

So it's not Science.

As for peer review, generally that is just the way ‘science’ manages to hang on to its old and worn naturalistic prejudices.
That doesn't mean anything.

Yes, there's always a certain resistance to change. Yes. But "naturalistic prejudices" has no meaning.

Resistance to change is good actually, in reasonable amounts. When someone says "I've found this result", other guys with access to the same methods for testing say "No way! He's gotta be wrong!", and they go and check.

And that's good.

And you don't see it because you hate Science.

The Theory of Evolution triumphed in spite of the resistance to change. And this resistance in particular was quite stronger than in most cases. It made us humble (like heliocentrism), and people didn't like that. And scientists are people too.

No paradigm shift permitted if we can keep other feet firmly out of the door.
Dunno what you mean. But there SHOULD be a resistance to a paradigm change. A new paradigm should be tested first before even competing.
Any scientists desiring to challenge the old and worn paradigm have to write books to present their challenges.
D'oh.

If you don't bother putting your ideas on paper, and you don't want for them to face criticism, why should someone bother checking them?

And you say it's worn. That was the blah blah part of your sentence.
Oh my, now I remember, Darwin did that too!
So?
What does 'proving' have to do with anything?
Well if you call something like evolution ‘fact’, you must have definitive proof.
Or you can also learn something about the very basics of Science, and stop embarrassing yourself.
But science never has proof, it only has interpretations of the evidence so how can they call evolution ‘fact’?
Because we observe it. That's it.

So you're basically saying that there are no scientific facts? At all?

Man, you're clueless...


Evolutionists say that on the one hand and shout 'evolution is a fact' on the other hand. It's absurd.
For those who don't understand the first thing about Science, yes it is.
Hahahaha! You crack me up Wisp.
=D
When you say something I don’t like, I’ll just say that you clearly don’t understand science.
Be my guest.

But the difference is i can back it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

It's just basic Science, Lester. I know you don't like it, but if you will keep pretending that you do, learn 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: 11:34 PM on March 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:29 AM on March 1, 2010 :
Hahahaha! You crack me up Wisp. When you say something I don’t like, I’ll just say that you clearly don’t understand science.


Well sure, but Wisp is not ther one claiming to have a doctorate in a science-related field who did not know the definition of phenotype...





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:44 PM on March 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As I've written before, seeing what YECs do NOT respond to is as informative as what they DO respond to...

Quote from derwood at 10:25 AM on February 19, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 05:42 AM on  Rather try to explain to me why the evidence is contrary to your claims.

Since it isn't, I don't have to.

Well then TELL US ALL about the other-sided evidence that you are so familiar with!


How about we start with the fossil evidence for sudden creation?

Sure - do tell us how it is that a 6-day creation produces a progression in thefossil record.

Where can we find the layer in which all fossils are all mixed up as would have occurred during your flood?

The Cambrian explosion,

50+ million years...


the fish explosion, the dinosaur explosion

So many multi-million year 'explosions'...  

and every other full blown clear cut kind of creature that appears with no plausible precursors in the fossil record.

None whatsoever... Yup...
The old argument from no evidence.

So, are all these 'explosions' in contemporaneous strata, as they must be for YECism to be true?


Where is your slow gradual mutation and natural selection evidence?


Where is your evidence that evolution always proceeds slow and gradual?

Where are the living diosaurs, giant ground sloths, saber toothed cats, etc., who all were on the ark according to your holy book?

Why did they all die out and leave no subkinds?

Why make up a story that doesn’t fit the evidence when we already have one that does?

I know YECism does not fit the evidence, so why did youpeople make it up?

How is it that some buildings were apparently spared by your 'worldwide' flood, and how was it that this 'worldwide' flood went unnoticed byt the egyptians, chinese, mesoamerican indians, etc.?

Where is the actual geological evidence for a WORLD-WIDE flood?

I must say, in NONE of the books I read did I actually see any evidence presented IN FAVOR of YECism or IDism.  EVERY book produced the same lame 'arguments'  against evolution


You sound like you must be a Ken Miller friend here.


He's OK - but you come across as a Pye/Werner/Meyer worshipper.  And we all know how accurate their claims are.

But it is real simple - even if there were only 2 possibilities, YEC and evo - a lack of evidence for one does not 'prove' the other.   Evidence against one is not 'proof' of the other.


If I say the moon is green cheese and you claim it is blue cheese, if we look at the moon and see it it not green, does that mean it really is blue cheese?

He loves to argue that ID is only a negative argument against evolution but that is an outright misrepresentation which makes him sound like he never listens or as if he conveniently ignores anything that goes against what he prefers to believe.

Right, because I mean YECs and IDists only always present positive supporting evidence FOR their preferred position.

And you guys NEVER get caught misrepresenitng evolution, nosirree.  I mean, clearly evolution dictates that when a new species evolves, its ancestor must immediately die out, just like Werner implies.  And obviously evolution demands that a person is related to their grandfather, but NOT their great-grandfather.  How crazy is that?


Behe has said at the Dover trial that ‘we recognize design by the purposeful arrangement of parts.’


Oh, how quaint.

So let's see - we can use metaphorical language and idiosyncratic definitions to describe what we see and then claim that what we see is evidence for what we defiend!
Brilliant!

So, can I claim that evidence against design is the haphazard arrangement of parts and point to the recurrent laryngeal nerve or hind limb buds in dolphin embryoes as evidence?

Everybody recognizes design.

Oh, sure - we all recognize human activity.

Scientific literature discussing living organisms is full of design terminology.

Yeah - because metaphorical and analogical terminology is evidence!  


The bizarre thing though is that even though they recognize design, they insist that it is merely the ‘appearance of design’, not design itself.

Even more bizarre is the insistence that metaphorical language is evidence!


How can they possibly KNOW that, except via their exclusive philosophy of naturalism which does not allow for a designer?


And how can YECs possibly not know that claiming there are 'problems' with evolution means YECism is correct if not for their exclusive philosophy of supernaturalism and anti-rationalism?

[b]PARTS ARRANGED TO SERVE A PURPOSE is EVIDENCE OF DESIGN – positive evidence for design, not negative evidence against evolution.


ARGUMENT VIA ANALOGY, not empirical evidence.

Funny - I am quite nearly certain that if an evolutionist used analogies as evidence, UEC/IDCs would be all over us.

EVERY book produced the same lame 'arguments'  against evolution, most of which are false, distorted, overblown, irrelevent, etc.,


It seems to me that your claim of lame arguments against evolution only, is false, distorted, overblown and irrelevant.


Of course it seems that way to the philosophical supernaturalist who is belief-bound to unquestioningly accept Scripture as 100% true and to reject anythign that might coutner that belief.
Then again, you are the fellow claiming a doctorate in science who did not know what 'phenotype' meant.

So what am I supposed to look at, and why are you so reluctant to tell us all about your YEC facts?


Open your eyes, your religion has made you blind.


I'd say the same to you, but I know you've seen the evidence.

You just are belief-bound not to understand it.









-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:51 PM on March 2, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
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.