Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[ecco]

I'm pro-evolution, I embrace evolution. That said, I'm anti-evolution, I reject evolution.

OK, you're confused. My sympathies.

Let's try a little word substitution and see how it works...

• I'm pro-Intelligent Design, I embrace Intelligent Design. That said, I'm anti-Intelligent Design, I reject Intelligent Design.
• I'm pro-Creationism, I embrace Creationism. That said, I'm anti-Creationism, I reject Creationism.
• I'm pro-God, I embrace God. That said, I'm anti-God, I reject God.

Your logic is impeccable.

 

[ecco]

EXACTLY! So if evolutionists can't separate the two, then we are against and for it. That is a logical stance.

What "two"?

 

[ecco]

further attacks on my character like this will not be tolerated ecco.

I wasn't attacking your character. I was referring to your "debating" style. That is again evident in the post you just made. Let's examine just one part of your post as an example.

the links i presented support the following:
4. there is no evidence at all that life arose naturally from a "pond of goo".

Let's look at the issue of life arising in a pond of goo. Your words "no evidence" suggest that your position is that life did not arise from a pond of goo. To support your position, you state you have presented links that support your position. But, at this point in the thread, you have posted many links. Do you expect me, or anyone else, to search back through the thread looking for "goo"?

And is it really your position that life did not arise from a pond of goo? It is difficult to decipher what point you are trying to make, since you often make unresponsive or contradictory statements about your position. And then you don't even remember what you said.

ecco post # 328

I asked:
How do you explain the presence of humans on earth?
What evidence do you have for that position?
Your own thoughts, words, beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts.​

whois post # 330

i get asked this question a lot.
i don't have any real belief one way or another.
​

whois post # 374

actually i said i don't know where i stand in regards to evolution.​

 

[mickiio]

What "two"?

Microevolution and macroevolution. I am pro microevolution and accept it, but against macroevolution and reject it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Microevolution and macroevolution. I am pro microevolution and accept it, but against macroevolution and reject it.

They're the same thing chief!

 

[mickiio]

They're the same thing chief!

No, they are not. Evolutionists extrapolate micro to be the same thing, but there is NO evidence of crossing kinds anywhere and the evidence of it should be everywhere, if it was there.

 

[Jimmy D]

What's a kind?

 

[mickiio]

The evolutionary model is founded on the assumption of slow and gradual change over millions of years. Scripture implies a burst of rapid biological change immediately following the global Flood, and a slowing of that pace since then.

Scripture uses the word “kind” to describe the category of originally created groups of creatures. These kinds are the ancestors of all extant species. Darwinism assumes that biological change is virtually unlimited—that, given enough time, bunnies can become belugas, and penguins can become people. In contrast, Scripture implies that change is severely limited—specifically, that one “kind” of creature cannot be changed into another “kind.” They are "locked".

 

[Jimmy D]

Does it mean species, genus, family? Sounds a bit vague. Are Marsupials a kind?

In what way are they 'locked'?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The evolutionary model is founded on the assumption of slow and gradual change over millions of years.

Nope. Several lines of evidence that is piled mountains high.

Darwinism assumes that biological change is virtually unlimited—that, given enough time, bunnies can become belugas, and penguins can become people.

This is a strawman. Evolution makes no such claims. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ecco]

Microevolution and macroevolution. I am pro microevolution and accept it, but against macroevolution and reject it.

• You are pro microevolution because you can use it to explain how two of the "kind" felines became lions and tigers and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] cats as dictated by your beliefs in genesis.
• You are anti macroevolution because it contradicts your belief in genesis.

In other words, you begin with your conclusion; Genesis is truth. Then you try to bend science to support your conclusion.

Making a statement like "I am pro microevolution" is nonscientific and nonsense. It would be far more credible if you just say...

The bible says god did it,
I believe the bible to be truth,​

... and leave any and all reference to science out of it altogether.

 

[justlookinla]

OK, you're confused. My sympathies.

Let's try a little word substitution and see how it works...

• I'm pro-Intelligent Design, I embrace Intelligent Design. That said, I'm anti-Intelligent Design, I reject Intelligent Design.
• I'm pro-Creationism, I embrace Creationism. That said, I'm anti-Creationism, I reject Creationism.
• I'm pro-God, I embrace God. That said, I'm anti-God, I reject God.

Your logic is impeccable.

Since evolution isn't a monolithic term, I can be pro-evolution and anti-evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

No, they are not. Evolutionists extrapolate micro to be the same thing, but there is NO evidence of crossing kinds anywhere and the evidence of it should be everywhere, if it was there.

Exactly! And the sooner they admit this fact, and everyone here knows it, the better off they will be.

 

[justlookinla]

What's a kind?

May I jump in here and say that bacteria producing bacteria ain't the same thing as a life blob (unknown) producing hickory nuts and elephants?

 

[ecco]

Since evolution isn't a monolithic term, I can be pro-evolution and anti-evolution.

As I have said before, YOU do not get to make up definitions to suit your own beliefs.

May I jump in here and say that bacteria producing bacteria ain't the same thing as a life blob (unknown) producing hickory nuts and elephants?

You certainly can say that. Thank for supporting evolution. I'm quite certain that all people who support evolution would agree with your statement. I know I do.

 

[justlookinla]

As I have said before, YOU do not get to make up definitions to suit your own beliefs.

I've pointed out the differences to you more than once.....it has to do with the how/process and the scientific method. Simply because you refuse the facts doesn't make the truth disappear.

You certainly can say that. Thank for supporting evolution. I'm quite certain that all people who support evolution would agree with your statement. I know I do.

You're welcome. And maybe even more people will reject the faith-based evolutionary view of Darwinism which results in such beliefs that only naturalistic mechanisms produced hickory nuts and elephants from some life blob (unknown) of long ago.

Small steps.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I've pointed out the differences to you more than once.....it has to do with the how/process and the scientific method. Simply because you refuse the facts doesn't make the truth disappear.

Are you willing to write a paper on this subject and submit it to a reputable scientific publication?

 

[whois]

Let's look at the issue of life arising in a pond of goo. Your words "no evidence" suggest that your position is that life did not arise from a pond of goo.

my position is, we have no evidence it did.

To support your position, you state you have presented links that support your position. But, at this point in the thread, you have posted many links. Do you expect me, or anyone else, to search back through the thread looking for "goo"?

i will save you the trouble:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

And is it really your position that life did not arise from a pond of goo? It is difficult to decipher what point you are trying to make, since you often make unresponsive or contradictory statements about your position.

my position is that the truth about evolution should be spelled out to our students.
not implicitly, but explicitly spelled out.

And then you don't even remember what you said.

ecco post # 328

I asked:
How do you explain the presence of humans on earth?
What evidence do you have for that position?
Your own thoughts, words, beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts.​

whois post # 330

i get asked this question a lot.
i don't have any real belief one way or another.
​

whois post # 374

actually i said i don't know where i stand in regards to evolution.​

that's exactly right, i certainly do not believe in the validity of the modern synthesis.
i'm against all the lies and fraud associated with evolution in general.

 

[whois]

Are you willing to write a paper on this subject and submit it to a reputable scientific publication?

some scientists already have written papers on this topic.
maybe you should address post 97.

 

[mickiio]

• You are pro microevolution because you can use it to explain how two of the "kind" felines became lions and tigers and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] cats as dictated by your beliefs in genesis.
• You are anti macroevolution because it contradicts your belief in genesis.

Yes, I believe in God and Genesis, however macroevolution does not follow the laws of sciences. It does not follow the Law of Cause and Effect, The Second Law of Thermodynamics nor probabilities. In essence it should be thrown out. But because it is heralded by some as the best thing since apple pie it has not been.