Challenging Evolution

razzelflabben · #11 24th July 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Because natural selection can only work for the good of that individual. Thus, natural selection is selfish. And isn't selfishness a part of evil?
[/i]
Well, they are. Even the new head of ICR, the son of Henry Morris, admits that they are.

But theories can be disproven. And creationism has been disproven. Also, by all reasonable standards, evolution has been proven to be true. I have a thread called "Evolution Proven". You are welcome to disagree there.

Theories are accepted as (provisionally) true when there is considerable supporting evidence for them. For instance, round earth is a theory. Any doubt in your mind it is "proven"?

Creationism is also a theory. Remember, it has been disproven.

Also remember that evolution is not atheism. DoubtingMerle is an atheist, but evolution will not prove his atheism. Instead, evolution is simply how (for a theist) God created .

My children have offered to fix lunch so I will see how far I can get before I have to stop. I hope that my fiest response here will help to put things into perspective as to how and why they were asked of Merle and what my opinions are when not taken out of context. In the meantime, Merle has all my times used on this and the other thread, so I would appreciate if you could give me a short summary of how science has disproven creationism or intelligent design because as of yet I have not seen any such evidence.

I have seen much on what science calls proof of evolution, none of which is more than suggestions.

Also please not that in my first post, putting people perspective of the reason for this thread that I have already said that each is a theory.

razzelflabben · #12 24th July 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Sopharos

Evil is a psychological, philosophical and moral issue, and does not present any evolutionary disadvantage to the evolution of humans in any way.

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

Without any real understanding of the subject, obviously.

Science doesn't work that way. We interpret the evidence first, then construct a theory out of it. And it's not "truth", it's just the most scientifically acceptable theory to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Ahaha, laughable argument from fallibility. What he's basically saying is that:
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that Evolution is false.
(4) Therefore, Evolution is false.

R-O-F-L-M-A-O

I am unaware of any aspect of the Theory of Evolution that cannot be supported by scientifically viable evidence.

More argument from fallibility. Aha-ahahahahaha!!!

Not within the scope of Evolution.

We know that one, though.

I smell an argumentum ad populum coming.

Ah, idiocy was epidemic back in those days. Science solved this problem.

Evolution =/= Atheism.

Ladies and gentlemen, there we have it: argumentum ad populum.

I don't see what aspect of evolution can be mathematically demonstrated as highly improbable.

I've never heard of a scientist saying such a thing. "Infallible truth" is a concept of religion, not science. Rules of religion =/= rules of science. Shut up and take your persecution complex somewhere else.

Wrong. That is a folk saying used by common society with no science behind the statement. The mechanics of gravity is much more complex than that. Learn some Physics instead of making strawman simplifications.

If such a solid exist, we would have flying cars by now. And man have not defied gravity at all, they've just produced enough force to counter the effects of gravity. Learn some Physics.

Cease your gibberish and learn some Physics.

Science changes and improve on itself, so if something is shown to be wrong, science corrects itself. That's what science is.

Never heard of such a statement coming from a mouth of a scientist.

Yes, Science is based on observation - and your observation is wrong. Simple is that.

I am going to assume that some of your arguements are based on the misconceptions Merle intended to present about my opinions and as such, I have nothing to say to this post. If you read my first post and want to address issues after my post is put into perspective, then we can discuss your opinions.

razzelflabben · #13 24th July 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Obertray

You didn't just write it off as a razzleflabben post?

You're all brave, brave people.

I'm not sure where to take this as a compliment or a critisizm.

doubtingmerle · #14 25th July 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

after telling you repeatedly that I have no interest in discussing evolution with you, you insist I come here and debate.

Huh? I said the exact opposite. I said your anti-evolution rhetoric will be so easily defeated, it is best for you not to defend it. And now you say I am insisting that you come here? Hello?

If anybody is interested in the history of how we got here, there were a few posts regarding evolution in the tornadoes thread beginning at post 344.

I have about 3 weeks of backlog on this forum

, so I will not be able to respond to this stuff now. If nobody answers this stuff before then, I will put it next on my agenda.

razzelflabben · #15 25th July 2004, 05:49 PM

You debate techniques are interesting, I watch with interest.

Originally Posted by doubtingmerle

Huh? I said the exact opposite. I said your anti-evolution rhetoric will be so easily defeated, it is best for you not to defend it. And now you say I am insisting that you come here? Hello?

I do not give anti-evolution rhetoric, only defend your twisting of what was said, and you claim you did not insist on me coming here?

What do you call it when someone says, I am going to twist you words to make you look like a fool and then tease you with what I have done so that you will come. Then I am going to assurt that I did none of that. Interesting, very interesting.

If anybody is interested in the history of how we got here, there were a few posts regarding evolution in the tornadoes thread beginning at post 344.

By all means, anyone doubting my words, read the forum, but dont' just start or stop at post 344, see how Merle has been debating his own opinions throughout the thread, it is interesting read.

I have about 3 weeks of backlog on this forum , so I will not be able to respond to this stuff now. If nobody answers this stuff before then, I will put it next on my agenda.

Then why did you not manage your time better and save this thread for when you did have more time? An am anxious to see your next debate tactic. I am learning a lot.

doubtingmerle · #16 25th July 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

and you claim you did not insist on me coming here? What do you call it when someone says, I am going to twist you words to make you look like a fool and then tease you with what I have done so that you will come. Then I am going to assurt that I did none of that. Interesting, very interesting.

I never insisted that you come here.

I never said I was going to twist your words to make you look like a fool.

I never teased you with what you have done to make you look like a fool.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

The Bellman · #17 25th July 2004, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

And we now have a solid that is lighter than air

What is this lighter-than-air solid? Do you have any support for this claim?

billwald · #18 26th July 2004, 12:58 AM

"As stated earlier, fallible, temperal man cannot interpret the infallible eternal."

Then what is the purpose of theology?

billwald · #19 26th July 2004, 01:08 AM

"Now mathamticians have done probability studies (math being a much more exact science than science) and the studies suggest that the probability of evolution is astronomically against."

This is a gross error. Probability only applies to future events. Past events are a done deal. They can only try to calculate the probability of evolution happening a 2nd time.

Jet Black · #20 26th July 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

I asked you how evolution addresses the vast differences between man and animals, things like guns, computers, abortions, etc.

Evolution remains largely a genetically based theory, not a memetic one.

Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale. How does evolution answer this question?

Evolutionary theory indicates nothing of the sort.

Oiy how many times must I go over this with you? I do not know the name of the report that I heard and I have not real interest in it at all. Fraud or not, it does not prove evolution. If it is not a fraud, then it would prove a flaw in the evolutionary theory. If it is a fraud, it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time.
Evolution 0
Creation0

the fact that creationists keep plugging it as evidence counts against them somewhat don't you think? it has no bearing on evolution.

What I understand and do not understand about evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the posts made to you. I asked you about your understanding of evolutionary theory, including that there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution because it is a matter or man's interpretation.

actually yes there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. twin matched hierarchies, the existance of a great number of transitional forms in the fossil record, observed instances of speciation, observed instances of rapid evolution, junk DNA, pseudogenes, ERVs, ALUs, Biodiversity and so on and so on......

I believe that to put things into context, I did not say one way or the other what I believed. But since you asked, I believe that evolution is a theory and so is creationism and intelligent designism, as such, I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.

do you now. do you actually know anything about the evidence for evolution, or is your claim just a blind one? I suspect that to be the case.

My personal belief system is one of intelligent design. I base my beliefs on the contrictictions I see in science on the issue, my belief system in God and the consistancy found in the bible, and the consistancy that bible has shown in my life. My belief system is not however what we are discussing so I would expect this to be the last on this issue.

this would be the intelligent design responsible for, amongst many other things, the laryngeal nerve, manatee toenails, eyes in the Itjaritjari which are embedded in the skin, Bothriomyrmex regicidus and B. decapitans, Scurvy, the male Urethra, greenland shark eyes,. need I go on? why doesn't your intelligent designer design intelligently?

Try God created every living things. And that they reproduce according to their kind. That is one theory and as to what is reproducable scientific data, there is nothing to prove otherwise. The very nature of the theory of evolution proves that evolution cannot be proven because of the length of time involved to reproduces a sugnificant change.

false, evolution is both fact and a theory, science doesn't do proof so you might as well argue the same against gravity.

Explain what you are referring to and we can address it in more detail. I will assume you mean that man footprints are not along side dinosaurs, that can be explained by the creationist theory of the flood. So again, we are at

only the flood has been falsified already. you can't call on a falsified theory to try to explain things, because it's false.

What gives you this idea? I have heard reputable scientists on both sides of the issue debate. Both have strong points, thus further proof that there is not overwhelming evidence to support evolution.

please give us some of these strong points.

2. The probability of something happening. Mathamatics is a much more exact science and as such, has put astronomically low probability on the evolutionary theory

false. give evidence, please don'T quote Hoyle's calculation of abiogenesis, because (1) abiogeneisis is unrelated to evolution (2) it is a strawman

What facts prove evolution. Science itself is an interpretation of the data. Interpretations can vary. What proof makes evolution fact, this is the issue I have with evolutionist, they claim fact when theory is what they have.

the fact that mutation and differential reproductive success have been observed. tell me, given variation in the population and differential reproductive success, how exactly would you stop evolution?

And we now have a solid that is lighter than air,

evidence plz rather than claims.

So does our knowledge of our world and to date, evolution has not been proven nor creation or intelligent design, disproven.

creation has not been disproven, since the fact that we exist proves we were created, the question is how we were created. intelligent design on the other hand is set up as an unfalsifiable theory, how on earth are we meant to determine if something is intelligently designed or not. Yesterday I went down to the river, and there is a shingle beach there. on looking at it, I could see that the shingle beach was intelligently designed, with each stone placed in a specific location by an intelligent shingle beach maker. prove me wrong. Of course one question IDists do have to answer is why their intelligent designer is so incapable of designing intelligently.