My personal opinion on Antony Flew's departure from evolution and atheism (dinosaur, gnostic)

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Freak80

Oh? Please explain.

I already asked him to. Twice. All he did was restate the same thing again using slightly different words, without explaining anything. It is a mantra it seems, not an actual claim or position.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I already asked him to. Twice. All he did was restate the same thing again using slightly different words, without explaining anything. It is a mantra it seems, not an actual claim or position.

That seems to be the MO of many on here. They just keep repeating that same assertions over and over while ignoring all demands to back up those assertions.

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by Freak80

That seems to be the MO of many on here. They just keep repeating that same assertions over and over while ignoring all demands to back up those assertions.

It's all they got - nothing but noise.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Except there is and I mentioned some. But blanket denial without any substantive rebuttal appears to be your MO of choice. Perhaps you think repetition of assertion is all that is required to turn it into fact.

Not only is there transitional fossils, but their form and structure was even predicted by the Theorists before they were found. That is how perfectly they fit the Theory.



Take your own advice before presuming to admonish others on this. Especially someone who is actually trained as I am in the biological sciences. I need no requirements for study from you.



Again repetition of your assertion without substantiating the assertion. You said "DNA proves Evolution as popularly believed and taught is not possible." and I asked you to detail to me how but all you have done is re-word and repeat the exact same assertion as "It eliminates Evolution from occurring."

So all I can do is repeat the same question since all you have done is make the same assertion.

How?



Which is fine because evolution does not claim any species "Crossed the kind line". You are peddling the same type of rhetoric that convicted criminal Kent Hovind liked to pedal when he was a free man about things like "Cats becoming dogs".

Your diatribes about the "kind line" are attempting to rebut claims Evolution does not actually make. I have no idea what you think you mean by it, and I find myself doubting you yourself do either. Define what you think a "kind line" is and what a fossil showing it occurred would entail exactly. If you are going to manufacture these claims on behalf of our mouths, at least define your terms. Enlighten us. What is a "kind line" in evolution in your mind. And what attributes would a fossil demonstrating such a cross have to posses? I am sure you will have no trouble at all defining these two simple things.



Dodging substantiating YOUR assertion by demanding others prove the counter assertion is an old a trick as it is transparent. YOUR claim was DNA precludes evolution. YOUR task is to substantiate that claim, not for me to substantiate the opposite.

But I will help you out. For Evolution to ocour, actual evolution not the weird one you seem to straw man, you only need three things.

1) Information
2) Near, but not perfect, fidelity in reproduction of that information
3) Some pressure influencing successful further reproduction of the modified forms from 2.

That is it. You need nothing more. And DNA is _exactly_ that. Not a little like that. Not nearly like that. It is _exactly_ that.



I am noticing them. And they are coming from you. You claimed DNA precludes evolution. No science to back this up. And when asked for some, you merely restated the same claim with new words. Again no science to back this up.

But it is common 101 stuff for you people it seems to accuse others of what only you are actively engaged in.

Your words an no scientific proof that can be verified to support it.

Give ONE example of Scientific evidence that shows a "Kind" can be changed into another "Kind" EVERY test has shown a limit and deterioration. Again check out Mendel's work and EVERY test after that. If you know Biology you should have proof from your instruction of tests that show change that is an improvement not deterioration.

You mention transitional examples.

OK like Australopithecus

Fine, noted Moderator cut: Scientists and anthropologist Richard Leakey had the following to say:

Similarly Richard Leakey said that it is “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines. (Origins (1977) What New Discoveries Reveal About the Emergence of Our Species and Its Possible Future By Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin


Why?

Anatomist Zuckerman had the following to say: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.
Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.

[Snowball7]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

I believe in Something Greater Than Man. If you want to label that "God" I'm okay with that for the purpose of this discussion. But it tends to cloud the issue because "God" is so closely associated with the Abrahamic version in your bible.

And that psychopath has nothing to do with the real God.

Evolution tells how life changed after it came to be. No one - not you, not any atheist, not any Muslim or Hindu - knows how life first began.

But evolution is the true story of what happened once it did begin.

I don't really disagree that much with people who don't care for the Old Testament
God. Although I believe the prophets and like some of the psalms, and proverbs,
for me the Bible starts with the Gospel. Many early Christians (who were declared heretics)
did not believe Jesus's "Father" was the Old Testament God at all. They couldn't rectify
discreapancies. Early gnostic communities and writers had various theories. I pretty much
believe that parts of the Old Testament are inspired Word of God, but much of it is nothing
but tribal hegemonistic history and legends of the Hebrews.
Anyway, I don't believe in evolutionary theory not for religious reasons, but only because
I'm not intellectually convinced at all of its validity.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Your words an no scientific proof that can be verified to support it.

Which words? It is you saying things and refusing to support them. Not me. I cited actual examples you have not. At all. Even once.

Originally Posted by expatCA

Give ONE example of Scientific evidence that shows a "Kind" can be changed into another "Kind"

Again you repeat your MO of repeating what you said before without addressing any of the rebuttals or questions put to it.

So I will repeat the question again since you dodged it twice now: Explain what you think you mean by a "kind" changing to a "kind" here. It is not clear that what you mean by this is what Evolution Science means by it. Give examples also where possible. What do you think it means?

Originally Posted by expatCA

You mention transitional examples. OK like Australopithecus

Not what I mentioned at all. I was talking about whales. I at no point mentioned Australopithecus. You did. You claimed there is no transitional fossils and I cited the example of fossil land mammal to whale transitions. Of which we have SEVERAL. And they fit Evolution Science so well that we actually predicted what they would look like and how they would be formed.... even BEFORE we found them.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Snowball7

which is what ? you don't believe the chain of life ends at:
rocks > plants > animals > man > (nothing).
you don't believe that. it is impossible.

WARNING: the following is a commentary on just complexity and not religion. I am not a believer in Omni gods. If your god exists he is slapping you in the face with "evolution" and saying "HERE IS WHAT I DID STUPID". what do you think I sent scientist for!!!!!!! My first son failed organic-1 they killed him

nope snow . it is kind illogical using the basic of notion "emergence" and the most basic science, to me anyway, biological sciences, that complexity does not continue. There is no Omni thing though, or at least should I say not much in the way of Omni. I don't think it knows we are here, but I don't know for sure.

I don't think it possible of us to have anything the universe doesn't have more of. You name it. We would have to prove that a "fallacy". With the hardware in place, all be it basic, for quantum computing and some 10^70 particles being only about 4 -6 % of the known universe. Its more logical to assume more complexity than no-nothing complex. then toss in we don't know how the very small or the very massive work. Then Nasa's experiment that shows space is someting. (see the roundest object in the world). it is kind of stupid to hold to the claim that there is no more complexity.

We just can't keep saying "not evidence, not evidence. not evidence". at some point we have to be honest. we have to look at it all. and some people, most people can't grasp it. Neil does. Carl did. Witten does. Krauss is good when you know what he is talking about.

This post is just a commentary/personal opinion though. I take nails (lol ... Neil "the nailed that" )and Carl's and many other "known" science guys stance when push comes to shove. The word "Life" is what they would might use if you spoke to them. Witten is doing a nice job. He is just so no-god darn boring.

I wonder what group has more "agnostic atheists"? astronomers or biologist? ones that know what physics says or the cell part list guys. I guess it don't matter cause we'll pick whatever one fits our personal needs anyway.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Which words? It is you saying things and refusing to support them. Not me. I cited actual examples you have not. At all. Even once.

You are not reading my posts. I gave the example of the horse "Kind" and hinnies.

Again you repeat your MO of repeating what you said before without addressing any of the rebuttals or questions put to it.

Yes because no scientific rebuttals have occurred.

So I will repeat the question again since you dodged it twice now: Explain what you think you mean by a "kind" changing to a "kind" here. It is not clear that what you mean by this is what Evolution Science means by it. Give examples also where possible. What do you think it means?

It is simple. The "Kind" covers those animals that have the ability to reproduce among themselves. Broad example, is no cat will ever become a bird. Equines reach a limit when ... reproduction ceases and the end result of evolution within a kind is reached. Again tell us about Mendel and the fruit flies?

Not what I mentioned at all. I was talking about whales. I at no point mentioned Australopithecus. You did. You claimed there is no transitional fossils and I cited the example of fossil land mammal to whale transitions. Of which we have SEVERAL. And they fit Evolution Science so well that we actually predicted what they would look like and how they would be formed.... even BEFORE we found them.

OK, aside from the speculation, what actual transitions do we have that are not of the sameKind? Scientific proof they are not the same kind and are related by more than some structure. You know like DNA evidence? Not speculation, but proof.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by expatCA

You are not reading my posts. I gave the example of the horse "Kind" and hinnies.

No it is you not reading my posts, because you keep saying things do not exist that I gave examples of, and claiming something about "kinds" without answering my questions about that. I need examples AND an explanation. Not just a vague wave at horses. And your example is not an example of what I am asking. I will try again.

You think we should be finding fossils showing changes from one "kind" to another. I want to know what you mean by this, and what fossils demonstrating it would need to show exactly.

Originally Posted by expatCA

Yes because no scientific rebuttals have occurred.

Because you have given nothing scientific to rebut. You just keep on with the mantra that DNA disproves evolution. And when anyone asks you to explain how, you simply repeat it. Nothing can be rebutted if you continue to contrive to not give anything to rebut. Answer the question if you can.

Originally Posted by expatCA

It is simple. The "Kind" covers those animals that have the ability to reproduce among themselves. Broad example, is no cat will ever become a bird.

But evolution does not claim a cat will ever become a bird. It has never claimed that. So it appears the "evolution" you are so desperate to disprove bears no resemblance to the one scientists actually claim. Perhaps this is why you can not answer the DNA question. Because you are attempting to use DNA to disprove a claim no one has ever actually made.

Originally Posted by expatCA

OK, aside from the speculation, what actual transitions do we have that are not of the sameKind?

As above that is not what evolution claims. But I have already cited to you the example of land mammal to whale transitions. Which you have not acknowledged, addressed, or rebutted in any way. The usual dodge MO you employ with such gusto and fetid desperation.

[Heart_Song]

By page 8, I had had enough. My question is why so many atheists are full of rage toward people who believe in God whether or not they believe in evolution or not. I find the angry atheists disturbing. They remind me of the extreme fundamentalists of every religion.