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 don't know science well enough to know that is not evidence to support natural selection. Prove me wrong.
I don't. I get my information from well qualified scientrists. Mainly othe ICR
Do you REALLY think that if a non-scientist forum poster can't readily answer the question -- or WON'T answer it for various reasons, you've won?
It is really amusing that all of you evos want to bring religion into a science discussion. Stick to the subject.
What is more audacious and more than amusing is that I don't demand anything. I don't mention the Bible. I stick to science, Why don't you? Are you that ignorant of real science?
Real science proves things, not one single thing in the TOE has ever been proven. That's why.
What body, panel, committee, caucus, or tribunal gave you the power to decide for everyone -- including actual scientists -- what is science and what isn't?
Why the rant. I have not decided anything for anyone. I have posted my beliefs, just like you have. If you can't defend your position, consider not posting in a thread you are ignorant of the subject.
Stick to the subject. Let me remind you again, It is science, not the Bible.
Stick to the subject. If you want to discuss the Bible start a thread on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
There you have it, folks. He gets his information from the "Institute for Creation Research." That certainly explains a lot, doesn't it?
That certainly is a give -away. And our pal' Omega's Eusebian -type ploys denying all evidence, refusing to accept that He has any case to make and presenting bias such as laughing at the idea of a land animal evolving into a sea screature, when seals and penguins are clear evidence of such adaptation, and ...what have we had, claims of genetic barriers and denial of natural selection?
The ploys are familiar and obvious, and that the thread in about evidence for 'Macro" evolution rather than the Bible, gives him a handy platform.
But it doesn't matter. While Eusebius always used to ignore compelling evidence and regard "proof" as what he would accept, The evidence is all for evolution, and Creation spokespersons are repeatedly shown as misunderstanding or misrepresenting the science.
Most memorable was a some Creation apologist tipping a replica of 'Lucy' bones out on a table and sneering at them. In fact in fossil terms, that was remarkably complete - 40%, and more if you mirror the missing bits. from what is there. The numerous similar finds were simply ignored, but they add support to the 'Lucy' skeleton and pretty much complete it. Misrepresentation is the name of the Creationist "science" game.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-03-2017 at 07:20 AM..
Reason: Removed extraeneous quote tag left from the quoted post.
I get my information from well qualified scientrists. Mainly othe ICR.
You seem to be proving the point I made in my earlier post. I see it over and over in these threads. Creationists read creationist literature, but rarely, if ever, read actual scientists who defend evolution. Again I say: Rule #1 for a productive debate is this: Study your opponent's positions as defended by your actual opponents. You need to read what actual evolutionists are saying in order to pick the BEST arguments AGAINST your own position. Constantly attacking strawmen is a waste of time.
Can you list some actual pro-evolution science sources that you have read or watched? Referencing these sources, can you tell us what you think these pro-evolution scientists offer as their best evidence for evolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
My rejection of evolution is based purely on science...
If your primary sources are ICR, then this statement is questionable, at best.
Quote:
...especially the laws of genetics.
Which laws of genetics disprove evolution? Also, have you taken into consideration the numerous recent advancements in genetics and other aspects of the TOE? E.g., epigenetics, "hopping genes", the Human Genome Project, punctuated equilibrium, dynamical systems theories...
Quote:
How do you know the universe is expanding when you have never seen its outer limits.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you need to see the outer limits in order to know its expanding? Let's test your creative thinking: Can you tell that a balloon is expanding if all you can see is a couple square inches of the balloon?
Quote:
What is the origin of the matter that went boom.
Our best theories at the moment suggest the energy implicit in the quantum vacuum.
Quote:
What is the origin of the energy that caused it to go boom.
Science is based on logic applied to empirical data. Logical arguments require "given" premises (i.e., some "brute facts" need to be accepted in order for the logical argument to even get started). That reality is energetic has to be taken as a logical given. If you allow yourself to ask where energy came from, then we are allowed to ask where God came from. If you can accept God as a brute fact of existence, then we can accept energy as a brute fact of existence. Goose/gander.
Quote:
How did life originated from lifeless elements?
If we had detailed answers to every question, we would no longer need science. We are a long ways from the end of science. A variety of plausible theories for abiogenesis have been proposed. Some basic "proof of concepts" have been done. The lack of consensus on a theory at the moment does not imply that abiogenesis can't happen. It simply means we have more work to do. (BTW: Suppose I ask: How did God create life from the dust of the Earth? If you can't outline the physiochemical details of God's work, can I use that as proof that God did not do it?)
Quote:
You have not see the outer edges of the universe, therefore you can't say it is expanding. That is a no bainer.
I'd be curious to know where you are getting this argument from. I've read a fair amount of Creationist literature, but I don't recall seeing that argument. I seriously doubt that any reputable scientist or philosopher would ever propose it. Whoever it was, the lack of a bainer might explain the problem.
Quote:
Answer this one question; has the outer edge of the universe eve been seen?
Actually yes. Doug Adams ate at a restaurant there.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 10-03-2017 at 07:57 AM..
Ah the difficulty of arguing with people who don't know enough to know that they don't know enough and have no intent to ever change that fact.
omega wields the FODI* like he was born to it and has burnished it to a very dull, Eusebian sheen. He can deflect truth and rationality without breaking a sweat.
I know how evolution is said to work. I know pakicetus has been put in the linage of whale evolution. That in itself is absurd and scientifically impossible, but to claim a land animal doing very well on land would enter a more hostile environment and become a whale is laughable.
You are incorrect. A land animal species can live near water, then the population slowly become's an otter-like due to selection of small traits adding up, then become's hippo-like, then becomes dolphin-like. A wolf-like land animal is not going to became whale-like out of the blue. [even if there was a catastrophe for land-dwellers and wolf-like population could swim and catch fish].
Quote:
It is amusing that 2 of your fossils experts, Gold and Mayr say that is what happens.
Yes, I'd find it amusing too, although a fossil expert isn't exactly qualified as an evolutionary biologist. Oh... you meant Gould from the 70s? I can read up on how he thinks evolution is a lie after studying it deeply and critically and skeptically as one should study religion (if he even thinks such a thing about evolution).
Quote:
Here is a statement from Mayr - "Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...the discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
What is Evolution, p. 189
Gould says basically the same thing.
I just looked it up and it took 5 minutes. Neither of those two people deny evolution, since they were trying to prove that evolution worked the way they thought, rather than through the old and common-sense idea of phyletic gradualism: the old idea that all species at all times change slowly (and stay the same slowly) yet steadily because of random mutation.
In their view, large populations (the ones that would be found in fossil records) are far too stable to experience natural selection at all times, so instead they came up with the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" which means that rapid evolution (and speciation) only happens when some disaster makes the population smaller and thus more susceptible to changes through natural selection. This makes complete sense with what people were teaching about the modern synthesis of evolution (in college at least) 10 to 15 years ago. It seems that Gould and Mayr's PRO-EVOLUTION ideas caught on among those supposedly "close-minded" experts and they strengthened the model to comport to the available evidence, math, and logic.
Quote:
Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process of gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.
If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow.
In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance. If most evolution happens in these rare instances of allopatric speciation then evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record should be rare.
This hypothesis was alluded to by Mayr in the closing paragraph of his 1954 paper:
"Rapidly evolving peripherally isolated populations may be the place of origin of many evolutionary novelties. Their isolation and comparatively small size may explain phenomena of rapid evolution and lack of documentation in the fossil record, hitherto puzzling to the paleontologists."
That will be $2 please. Thank you.
P.S. evolution always said that species reproduce after their kind (their parents)... The idea is that through small gradual changes "micro-evolution" 1 x 1000 is 1000 small changes which can equal 1 big change if there is the right "selection" pressure.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-03-2017 at 11:09 PM..
If my Theory about OImega is right he has nothing but scorn for the Urey experiments. "They tried to produce life, but failed miserably." As Gaylen said, a strawman argument. It did add to the feasability of the abiogenesis mechanism. Some others say that undersea vents show that such was the source of life rather than shallow ponds - the mineral "soup", as the colloquial term has it. I rather doubt that life started in those undersea vets but rather has adapted to living there. But the fossil record of life shows that it began in the water. The Cambrian oceans were full of life before it ventured out onto land, and the need for water is pretty much a basic of life.
However, while the origins of life are an interesting study, using the 'don't know' about it as a way of debunking evolution is a truly futile strawman. Even if a god plonked the first cells in the sea, the evidence is that from then on it evolved, rather than appeared as all the 'kinds' (forgive the term) we see today, less the extinct ones.
The argument that all the present 'kinds' appeared in the Cambrian -period ocean is absurd. We had water - plants, crustaceans, annelida of various kinds and proto -fish. There was a lot of evolving to be done, yet.
That certainly is a give -away. And our pal' Omega's Eusebian -type ploys denying all evidence, refusing to accept that He has any case to make and presenting bias such as laughing at the idea of a land animal evolving into a sea screature, when seals and penguins are clear evidence of such adaptation, and ...what have we had, claims of genetic barriers and denial of natural selection?
The ploys are familiar and obvious, and that the thread in about evidence for 'Macro" evolution rather than the Bible, gives him a handy platform.
But it doesn't matter. While Eusebius always used to ignore compelling evidence and regard "proof" as what he would accept, The evidence is all for evolution, and Creation spokespersons are repeatedly shown as misunderstanding or misrepresenting the science.
Most memorable was a some Creation apologist tipping a replica of 'Lucy' bones out on a table and sneering at them. In fact in fossil terms, that was remarkably complete - 40%, and more if you mirror the missing bits. from what is there. The numerous similar finds were simply ignored, but they add support to the 'Lucy' skeleton and pretty much complete it. Misrepresentation is the name of the Creationist "science" game.
Let me give 3 you a clue that might help your scientific ignorance. Saying something is evidence does not make it evidence. There are genetic barriers for those who understand even basic genetics. Natural selection comes straight out of pope Darwin's la la land and you have no evidence supporting it. Now prove med wrong and post the evidence to support it. Mentioning Lucy is just another indication that you lack understanding of science. You have absolutely no evidence linking apes and humans.
You have no evidence linking seals and penguins to land animals.
I suggest you take a course in remedial genetics. It is obvious your indoctrination has been successful, and it has made you ignorant of what science can and can't do.
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.
