My Stupid Challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually "blind" is a better term.

No. No it's not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a fun analogy of gradual change:

I love to pwn this example (and its grayscale counterpart).

Are you suggesting evolution can be demonstrated with this example?

If so, then why does evolution have so many missing links?

And if there aren't any missing links, then are you saying you can daisy chain cyanobacteria to man by laying physical evidence down side-by-side?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. No it's not.

Science is omniscient then, is it?

It's either omniscient, blind or myopic.

(Perhaps it just has a very large blind spot?)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science is omniscient, is it?

It's either omniscient, blind or myopic.

(Perhaps it just has a very large blind spot?)

... did you mean to reply to my comment with that post?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I love to pwn this example (and its grayscale counterpart).
Are you suggesting evolution can be demonstrated with this example?

I think I called it a "fun example of gradual change".
I mean, how can you not notice that... it's even the only sentence of my post that you quoted. Surely you must have read at leat that sentence, yes?

So what i'm suggesting is that.......... it's a fun example of gradual change.

why does evolution have so many missing links?

"missing links" is an inaccurate description, but anyway...

Because fossilization is a rather rare process, since it requires rather specific circumstances to kick in. Meaning the vast majority of plants and animals never fossilize.

Next to that, the few that do fossilize... they're in the ground. So we have to actually find them and dig them up. I'ld think it's a safe assumption that we will only find a small percentage of all that are stuck in the ground as well.


So, to continue on with the fun example, what we dig up, is more like this:

And if there aren't any missing links, then are you saying you can daisy chain cyanobacteria to man by laying physical evidence down side-by-side?

There's no need for any chaining.

Evolution produces nested hierarchies. DNA holds the keys of its ancestry, as it is past on from generation to generation.

We don't need fossils. We can just map out our collective genomes and it's right there before you.... the family tree of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

... did you mean to reply to my comment with that post?

WOW! LOL!

Sorry!

I'm talking to myself now!

I fixed it.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't need fossils. We can just map out our collective genomes and it's right there before you.... the family tree of life.

Then don't give me that 'gradual change' or 'fun example' stuff and expect me to agree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science is omniscient then, is it?

It's either omniscient, blind or myopic.

(Perhaps it just has a very large blind spot?)

(Since this is the actual comment, I'll reply to this one.)

Science studies what is has evidence for. If there is evidence for the supernatural, then it will study it. But since the supernatural does not leave any evidence, it cannot study it. Simple as that.

 

[AV1611VET]

(Since this is the actual comment, I'll reply to this one.)

Thank you.

Science studies what is has evidence for. If there is evidence for the supernatural, then it will study it. But since the supernatural does not leave any evidence, it cannot study it. Simple as that.

Yes ... I'm familiar with why it is blind.

As I'm fond of saying, when science can build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... then it might have a leg to stand on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thank you.Yes ... I'm familiar with why it is blind.

No, science is not blind. As I said before: science will study what is has evidence for. If there is no evidence for something, science will not study it. That's why science does not study the supernatural or the religious, since there is no evidence for either.

And science has so much more of a leg to stand on that you like to say the Bible has.

 

[miknik5]

Probably not, and I can't say since that's not an answer I know. But it's not Adam since Adam is a theological literary device for describing the human race, not actually referring to an actual person.

Please. Really?

So there was no first man?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Please. Really?

So there was no first man?

Why are you bothering to ask? We both know that no matter what I say, you will not change your belief that Adam was the first man, and I'm not bothered about that.
But it is a fact that there is no actual evidence for a being called Adam having existed (and no, the mitochondrial Adam is not THE Adam from the Bible), but there is a shed load of evidence Charles Darwin having existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

but there is a shed load of evidence Charles Darwin having existed.

Like a city in Australia named after him? his face on a £10 note? The Preservation of Favoured Races? the Lady Hope story?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like a city in Australia named after him?

Not really what I had in mind when I said evidence. But, yes.

his face on a £10 note?

Well that's based on an actual photographic evidence of him, so yes.

The Preservation of Favoured Races?

Considering that he did indeed pen the book called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, then yes.
And again, very transparent attempt at linking Darwin's book to racism. Real class act right there, mate.

the Lady Hope story?

... Kind of.

Still, a heck of a lot more evidence that Darwin existed than the evidence that Adam existed, which is nothing.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There won't be time for either

But all the evidence we have says otherwise.

In your opinion, is Newton's Law of Gravity a better explanation than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

This also will not hold

What won't hold? Why not answer the question?

Also, I notice this hasn't been answered by any creationists yet...:

I was responding to 57 who said that it can't be demonstrated that "mutations add up" over generations. That is utterly false.
Not only CAN that be demonstrated, it HAS been demonstrated.

It IS being demonstrated everyday, on every farm, in every breeding program,... all around the world.

It literally is how we turned the banana on the right, into the banana on the left over many many generations of banana's:

Perhaps a Creationist could plant the seed from the banana on the left? Let me know how you go & I'll tell you why you can't find any seeds in that banana....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Like a city in Australia named after him? his face on a £10 note? The Preservation of Favoured Races? the Lady Hope story?

Birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate, Unbroken record of Descendants and Geneaology, Tax Records, Government Records of Property Transfers, Photos, His Research in his own handwriting, Records from his contemporaries about him and records from his intellectual opponents in Science, a Grave with his remains in it that we can dig up & test genetically....

 

[Kenny'sID]

Taken into consideration for what? We're talking about science here, not history, and an account in a book is not, cannot be by definition, scientific evidence of anything. It may describe scientific evidence, and the conclusions drawn from it, but the evidence has to exist and be examinable. The Bible is no more scientific evidence of creationism than Darwin's Origin of Species is scientific evidence of evolution.

Dude, you busted into something Jimmy and myself were talking about, a side resulting from the subject and if I'm not mistaken, the OP isn't necessarily about science, and the direction we had taken it was just fine. Fine if you want to answer for him, but I'd a least expect you to keep up with where we were instead of accusing me of being off topic, when you are the one off our topic....bizarre

 

[Kenny'sID]

Maybe you shouldn't waste energy on erecting strawmen, then..

Still spin, no matter if you do try to spin your way out of the spin.....geez

And maybe you should stop changing the subject in order to divert attention from your clearly spun posts. I know exactly what to meant.

Think I'll give you all a time out for misbehaving a bit more than usual.

 

[Speedwell]

Dude, you busted into something Jimmy and myself were talking about, a side resulting from the subject and if I'm not mistaken, the OP isn't necessarily about science, and the direction we had taken it was just fine. Fine if you want to answer for him, but I'd a least expect you to keep up with where we were instead of accusing me of being off topic, when you are the one off our topic....bizarre

It's only off topic if the "other records" you were taking about isn't the Bible.
In any case, this is a public forum, like it or lump it. If you don't want to answer the question I asked you, just ignore it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate, Unbroken record of Descendants and Geneaology, Tax Records, Government Records of Property Transfers, Photos, His Research in his own handwriting, Records from his contemporaries about him and records from his intellectual opponents in Science, a Grave with his remains in it that we can dig up & test genetically....

Versus time divided into BC/AD, millions of churches, songs, hymns, carols, holidays, symbols on (your?) flags, iconography, artwork, slogans, debates, organizations, schools, hospitals, debate teams, testimonies, anecdotes, books, the Bible, and martyrs?