Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem to have forgotten that anyone educated in the public school systems has red what evolution say.
Most people don't really begin to understand evolution until you get to college-level classes. I guess if a smart high school kid really applied himself in biology he/she could get the basic ideas well enough, but it is obvious to me that you do not fall into this category.
Quote:
For over 20 years I read the links provided by the evos in various forums. Not on of them ever had any verifiable scientific evidence.
Anyone can say they've read stuff. I can tell my teacher "I read the book" but does my teacher automatically believe me? No. The student needs to demonstrate they they've read and understood the material. In your case, what I'm looking for is for you to pick a couple of examples of arguments/evidence for evolution that appear to be good. You need to present these ideas in a "devil's advocate" - i.e., pick the BEST argument and present it persuasively. And THEN you proceed to demolish the ideas that you've just presented - showing exactly how the argument is flawed, or why the evidence fails to support the theory. Since this an internet forum and not a professional debate, I don't really expect much - just a few hints that you understand the arguments you are attacking. At this point you have displayed zero evidence of having read any pro-evolution literature (or, if you read stuff, you show no evidence of having understood anything that you read).
Quote:
Have you ever read the comments from creationist websites?
Yes, I have. In fact, more than that, I've read entire books by Creationists. For example: "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. I'm picking him for my example because Behe is a professor of biochemistry at a reputable university, and his arguments for "irreducible complexity" seem to present real challenges to the TOE. His basic point is that every advancement in evolution has to have survival value, and many of the complex adaptations we see in evolutionary history seem to require intermittent genetic leaps that have no conceivable survival value. He uses a mouse trap for an analogy to explain the concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces, e.g., a wooden base, the catch, a spring, a thing that holds down bar, etc. All of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Simply having a small slab of wood lying around, or a spring laying on top of it, doesn't get you anywhere insofar as a functioning mousetrap is concerned. A lot of biological systems are like very complicated mousetraps. I don't recall many details at the moment, but I think some of his examples were the eye, the flagellum of a bacteria, and the process of blood-clotting.
Unfortunately for Behe, since the publishing of his book, each and every case that he offers of "irreducible complexity" has been show to have a conceivable set of functional intermediates. I won't go into any more details here, but I believe that Ken Miller outlines several of these in his videos. (E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r2J6Y5AqE )
Quote:
ALL characteristics in the offspring must come from the gene pool of its parents. No gene for fins no fins.
Here, again, you are demonstrating that you have no grasp of genetics. Mutations occur. Also, BTW, the expressions of genes depends on a variety of factors, so genes can exist, even if they are not expressed.
Quote:
If you can't see the outer edge, you can't say it i expanding. That is a no-brainer.
Creative thinking is not necessary for your example. Even a cave man can see a baloon expanding. You are trying to compare what can be seen with what can't' be seen.
You've completely missed the point of the balloon analogy. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a balloon that is 4 feet in diameter, and it has been splattered with ink spots. You can only view the balloon through a small peep hole, so you can only see 10 square inches of the balloon. Someone then asks you: "Is the balloon expanding? Contracting? Or saying the same size?" Can you answer the question? Yes, you can. You measure the distances between some of the dots on the balloon, and then later you measure them again. Thus you can know whether the size of the balloon is changing, even if it is changing too slow to notice (like watching grass grow), and even if you are never able to see more than a tiny portion of the balloon.
Quote:
IMO, it is more logical to accept a creation needs a Creator.
I think we've been around the block before. Yes, a creation needs a creator. The definition of "creation" (in the sense of an artifact) implies a creator. The question is whether or not the universe is a "creation" in this sense. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I suspect it is not.
Quote:
...a system that works perfectly every time also needs an Intelligent Designer.
Virtually no natural system works literally "perfectly every time." Many systems work with amazingly high precision and predictability, but reality is too complex for any system to be perfect every time. But even if a system did work perfectly every time, why would it need a designer?
You cannot reason with a fundamentalist's deliberate, obdurate ignorance. It's a waste of time and intellect.
Better to just point and jeer. It's something even they can understand.
Up until the last post, I was having some fun with this thread - I sorta like the exercise of getting down to the basics and explaining scientific or philosophical concepts to laymen. It helps to refresh my mind from time to time. But there are limits. Depending on the response to my latest effort to explain the balloon analogy, there is a good chance that I will abandon this thread soon. Literally a child in about third grade can understand that level of explanation, so if omega2xx keeps fighting about it without showing at least some modest growth of insight, I will start to suspect trolling - playing dumb just to get a rise out of people. Once I start suspecting the presence of a troll, the fun starts to bleed out for me.
I wish that at least once - just one darned time - someone who has not seriously tried to read evolutionary evidence as presented by actual evolutionists would make some effort to do so, and then respond with intelligent questions, or arguments for why they are still not convinced. This incessant parroting of the standard Creationist talking points get very tiring. I was briefly encouraged by the business of "can't see to the edge of the universe" etc., because I had not seen this particular argument, but the solution is too simple to keep me entertained for very long.
Up until the last post, I was having some fun with this thread - I sorta like the exercise of getting down to the basics and explaining scientific or philosophical concepts to laymen. It helps to refresh my mind from time to time. But there are limits. Depending on the response to my latest effort to explain the balloon analogy, there is a good chance that I will abandon this thread soon. Literally a child in about third grade can understand that level of explanation, so if omega2xx keeps fighting about it without showing at least some modest growth of insight, I will start to suspect trolling - playing dumb just to get a rise out of people. Once I start suspecting the presence of a troll, the fun starts to bleed out for me.
I wish that at least once - just one darned time - someone who has not seriously tried to read evolutionary evidence as presented by actual evolutionists would make some effort to do so, and then respond with intelligent questions, or arguments for why they are still not convinced. This incessant parroting of the standard Creationist talking points get very tiring. I was briefly encouraged by the business of "can't see to the edge of the universe" etc., because I had not seen this particular argument, but the solution is too simple to keep me entertained for very long.
I have no way to prove it but omega2xx has a similar presentation as a long time troll - Eusebius. Eusebius was a highly intelligent atheist who presented as a hard-core Fundamentalist and he used his intellect and creativity to propound absurd justifications and rationalizations for literal interpretations of scripture. However, the lack of evidence of intellect here is disconfirming.
I have no way to prove it but omega2xx has a similar presentation as a long time troll - Eusebius. Eusebius was a highly intelligent atheist who presented as a hard-core Fundamentalist and he used his intellect and creativity to propound absurd justifications and rationalizations for literal interpretations of scripture. However, the lack of evidence of intellect here is disconfirming.
How do you come to the conclusion that Euse was a highly intelligent atheist?
I would not call any person highly intelligent who posted the types of things that Euse posted.
It makes no sense that a highly intelligent person would post that type of nonsense.
A person would not need to use intellect and creativity to propound absurd justifications and rationalizations for literal interpretations of scripture. All anyone has to do is read the scriptures that fly in the face of logic and science and they become quite laughable instantly silly.
Yes, there are other elements too. They are also lifeless. If you think they have life, please present the evidence for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
They did not. There expirements were a failure and were abandoned.
Told you. When predictions pan out the theory is supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
There is no evidence that life has ever evolved from a lower form. To say all the great variety of life, animal and plant life we have today, originated from one source is not only insane, it is genetically impossible.
There is masses of evidence that the present life -forms evolved from lower forms. You simply dismiss it with unsubstantiated claims, and accusations that we don't understand the subject when it it quite clear that it is yiou who doesn't understad it and doesn't want to.
You are of course harping on about the origins of life. That is irrelevant, even if a god dit it. The evolution of life -forms from the basic cell -structures (found in the fossil record) is enough to debunk Genesis. And that's all the debate is really about.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-04-2017 at 04:12 PM..
You cannot reason with a fundamentalist's deliberate, obdurate ignorance. It's a waste of time and intellect.
Better to just point and jeer. It's something even they can understand.
Ah.... but my dear old trouts, He doesn't matter, it's those looking in that we have to think of. Omega may not accept good evidence but they may, even though they may have been exposed to Creationist misrepresentations. To point and jeer does us no good and only confirms the prejudices of those who might have open minds but WANT to believe that creationism is correct. We should be playing into the Creationist hands.
And in fact We cannot convert anyone who will not listen. Our pal can only do that himself. We can do no more for him. He has all he needs in his head. He just has to stop shutting it out (1).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Well, let's first get a definition of natural selection.
natural selection. :a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...al%20selection
Now let's look at natural selection taking place right before our very eyes within a few generations of a population of lizards on the island of Pod Mrcaru. Go ahead and listen to it. It's less than six minutes long. There's your observable evidence of natural selection.
Richard Dawkins - Evolution Before Our Every Eyes - Lizards of Pod Mrcaru
I think our pal's point is not so much whether it happens, but the mechanism by which it happens. I've had the debate before and it was about whether there is scientific evidence (though he calls for Proof (2) that random mutations is the power of the mechanism. I validated that. But may have to do it again.
And I doubt he will watch anything by Dawkins on principle, even he does not believe that to do so would imperil his immortal soul.
(1) Another prediction. He will take my words and use them to accuse me of 'shutting out' the evident Truth of Creationism.
(2) Definition of proof
1 a :Scientifically proven in your face/as it happens/real time that compels acceptance by even the Creationist mind of a truth or a fact
1 b :Explanation of each evolutionary mechanism down to the Nano -particle by which the above happens, and the process before that right back to the origins of Life, which cannot be proven.
2 That which cannot ever be proven to someone who refuses to accept it, no matter how good the evidence is.
Eusebiam-Omeger dictionary.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-04-2017 at 04:38 PM..
Ah.... but my dear old trouts, He doesn't matter, it's those looking in that we have to think of. ...snip...
If he presented even a primary-school level of discourse to the subject(s) I'd agree.
But he doesn't.
He's an empty shell and his whole MO is to bounce whatever rational, truthful thing someone tells him off his fundashield.
And every single lurker with a high-school education and above room-temperature IQ is well aware that he's got nothing. Except what he wants: an audience and someone who'll pretend he's not one of those creatures who lives under a bridge.
And if any lurkers are actually impressed by his juvenile postings, they themselves are a lost cause anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Told you. When predictions pan out the theory is supported.
but my dear old trouts, He doesn't matter, it's those looking in that we have to think of. Omega may not accept good evidence but they may, even though they may have been exposed to Creationist misrepresentations. To point and jeer does us no good and only confirms the prejudices of those who might have open minds but WANT to believe that creationism is correct. We should be playing into the Creationist hands.
