Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Please tell me how we KNOW there is more than one blood type.

well, we have compelling evidence for different blood types, but we don't "KNOW" it. Please, cite your source that says we've "Proven" this fact.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Originally evolution included the origin of life.

Negatory; Origin of Species makes no claims on the origin of life itself. Heck, you don't even have to read the book itself, as Wikipedia has summaries of what each chapter covers.

When they had no answer that didn't people smile they abandoned. Have you never heard of the primordial ooze?

Lol, the "primordial ooze" term was always a joke phrase, and so is "primordial soup". At best they were oversimplifications used to try to explain abiogenesis to people that have no background in biology or chemistry. None of this has anything to do with evolution. There are only 2 big reasons people mention abiogenesis and evolution together:

1. life has to exist before it can evolve, so abiogenesis precedes evolution time-wise.
2. because creationists view evolution as the competitor to their creation story. In terms of the bible, the origin of life and the origins of various species are the same process. Even though the theory of evolution ONLY covers the origins of species and not life itself, one would have to debate abiogenesis and evolution together to cover all of the ways science conflicts with a literal interpretation of the biblical creation, among other things. (such as the Big Bang theory). It is fine to want to cover all the bases, as long as one recognizes that they are separate bases.

 

[omega2xx]

Negatory; Origin of Species makes no claims on the origin of life itself. Heck, you don't even have to read the book itself, as Wikipedia has summaries of what each chapter covers.

Origin of the species is not the only theory of origins and in the beginning evolution did talk about origins. In addition to the primordial soup, it use to claim the first lie form was a simple cell. When DNA was discovered, it had to walk back "simple cell."

Lol, the "primordial ooze" term was always a joke phrase, and so is "primordial soup". At best they were oversimplifications used to try to explain abiogenesis to people that have no background in biology or chemistry. None of this has anything to do with evolution. There are only 2 big reasons people mention abiogenesis and evolution together:

It was dreamed up by a Russian chemist and was not a joke. 2 guys tried to duplicatge creating a cell. Cant remember their names, but they failed, enter abiogenesis.

1. life has to exist before it can evolve, so abiogenesis precedes evolution time-wise.
2. because creationists view evolution as the competitor to their creation story. In terms of the bible, the origin of life and the origins of various species are the same process. Even though the theory of evolution ONLY covers the origins of species and not life itself, one would have to debate abiogenesis and evolution together to cover all of the ways science conflicts with a literal interpretation of the biblical creation, among other things. (such as the Big Bang theory). It is fine to want to cover all the bases, as long as one recognizes that they are separate bases.

Neither guess can be proved, so why waste our time. IMO, your faith in Darwin, exceeds my faith in God.

 

[omega2xx]

well, we have compelling evidence for different blood types, but we don't "KNOW" it. Please, cite your source that says we've "Proven" this fact.

To deny the obvious is pure stupidity. Have a nice day.

 

[omega2xx]

We have observed that there are four blood types just as we have observed the gradual change in genetic variation that occurs in biological populations over periods of time.

This gradual change has been observed many, many times, do you deny it? Even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ could accept it.

Now, if only we could come up with some sort of theory to explain how and why this change occurs.

These gradual changes that have been observed, NEVER result in a change of species.

We have an explanation for these changes and they age not gradual. These differences are cause by dominant genes in the gene pool of the parents.

 

[omega2xx]

P.S

Not this nonsense again, "I refuse to look at evidence, I WANT PROOF!"

Give me strength.

I have not refused to look at any evidence you are willing to cut and paste. It speaks volumes that none of you evos are willing to do such a simple thing to shut me up. IMO you have recognized that what these links offer as evidence is not scientific , so you are unwilling to expose the guesses of the TOE.

Come on, do something that will only take 5 minuets. Less time than what you have spent beating around the bush, Be the evo hero and shut me up. You would if you could, but you can't, and it become more obvious every day.

 

[omega2xx]

I find this explanation sufficient, thank you:
Formal proof - Wikipedia

Your link mentions formal PROOFS that can be checked. So I find their comments sufficient also. Thanks for making my point.

 

[Jimmy D]

These gradual changes that have been observed, NEVER result in a change of species.

Never? How do you know that?

We have an explanation for these changes and they age not gradual. These differences are cause by dominant genes in the gene pool of the parents.

Eh? What do you mean?

 

[Jimmy D]

I have not refused to look at any evidence you are willing to cut and paste. It speaks volumes that none of you evos are willing to do such a simple thing to shut me up. IMO you have recognized that what these links offer as evidence is not scientific , so you are unwilling to expose the guesses of the TOE.

Come on, do something that will only take 5 minuets. Less time than what you have spent beating around the bush, Be the evo hero and shut me up. You would if you could, but you can't, and it become more obvious every day.

Grow up, it's not the "show evidence of evolution to Omega" thread. If you wonder why "evos" are unwilling it's because of the tiresome antics of creationists who lie and pretend that they have never been "shown evidence".

Remember this....

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

LOL.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Origin of the species is not the only theory of origins and in the beginning evolution did talk about origins.

Lol, I sincerely do not care if Lamarck or others before Darwin were trying to integrate the origin of life into their various theories and hypotheses. They don't reflect any relevant modern theories, so I don't consider that relevant to the modern theory of evolution.

However, considering that Lamarck was the first person to come up with a theory of evolution, I did look into it; his theory doesn't cover the origin of life either, so you are incorrect; in the beginning, evolution did not talk about the origin of life itself.

In addition to the primordial soup, it use to claim the first lie form was a simple cell. When DNA was discovered, it had to walk back "simple cell."

Nope. The term "primordial soup" was first used in 1929, and the first cohesive argument for abiogenesis is from 1924. The closest thing to a primordial soup was mentioned by Darwin as a vague mention of "a warm little pond". He considered the possibility that life had naturalistic origins, but never expanded on it in any regard. You are simply incorrect.

It was dreamed up by a Russian chemist and was not a joke. 2 guys tried to duplicatge creating a cell. Cant remember their names, but they failed, enter abiogenesis.

If you are referring to Oparin, you are misunderstanding the point of his experiment. Complex cell generation is considered to be a process that takes too long to observe in a human lifetime, he was just demonstrating that under certain conditions, organic molecules needed for life form.

Plus, simple replicating cells formed in an abiogenesis experiment in 2013. Emphasis on simple, they don't have all of the cell parts modern ones do and their division is a consequence of their growth rather than a coordinated process by the cells.

But hey, since abiogenesis hasn't been tested near as extensively as evolution, it does bear the label of hypothesis rather than theory.

Neither guess can be proved, so why waste our time. IMO, your faith in Darwin, exceeds my faith in God.

-_- dude, Darwin didn't even know about DNA, why would I have any faith directly in him? Additionally, no one has demonstrably seen any deities, but we have seen populations change over time, so I just trust what is observable over what isn't. My reaction to evolution being disproven would be interest, so don't overestimate my emotional reliance on the scientific process. I go with the conclusions best supported by the evidence, no more and no less.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your link mentions formal PROOFS that can be checked. So I find their comments sufficient also. Thanks for making my point.

Formal proofs apply to closed axiomatic systems (logic, mathematics). This does not apply to statements of affairs in the real world, which are always potentially uncertain due to the possibility of errors in observation, interpretation, random chance, etc. This is why even Popperian falsification is not a guarantee that an hypothesis is incorrect, and why the scientific method aspires to minimise such errors and ideally requires independent replication.

You are correct that many scientific observations (e.g. plurality of blood groups, evolution by natural selection) are backed by so much accumulated evidence that they are beyond all reasonable doubt, and might colloquially be called 'proven', but this is not formal proof, as it is not purely deductive but relies on inductive reasoning from multiple observations. This is the 'Problem of Induction' identified by David Hume back in the 18th century.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

To deny the obvious is pure stupidity. Have a nice day.

I know, right? Just like Evolution that you deny, it's obvious too. If you're building a straw man, then I have to ask where I said I was denying we have different blood types, because that's not what happened there - I just stated that in Science, it isn't proven, because Science doesn't "prove" things.

In any case, the point has been made that you don't know what you're talking about. Your lack of understanding demonstrates the need for a sufficient science education in schools.

 

[omega2xx]

I know, right? Just like Evolution that you deny, it's obvious too. If you're building a straw man, then I have to ask where I said I was denying we have different blood types, because that's not what happened there - I just stated that in Science, it isn't proven, because Science doesn't "prove" things.

In any case, the point has been made that you don't know what you're talking about. Your lack of understanding demonstrates the need for a sufficient science education in schools.

When you understand "proved" get back to me. Until you do, you can revel in you ignorance of real science.

 

[omega2xx]

Formal proofs apply to closed axiomatic systems (logic, mathematics). This does not apply to statements of affairs in the real world, which are always potentially uncertain due to the possibility of errors in observation, interpretation, random chance, etc. This is why even Popperian falsification is not a guarantee that an hypothesis is incorrect, and why the scientific method aspires to minimise such errors and ideally requires independent replication.

You are correct that many scientific observations (e.g. plurality of blood groups, evolution by natural selection) are backed by so much accumulated evidence that they are beyond all reasonable doubt, and might colloquially be called 'proven', but this is not formal proof, as it is not purely deductive but relies on inductive reasoning from multiple observations. This is the 'Problem of Induction' identified by David Hume back in the 18th century.

Evolution by natural selection has never been observed.

That there is more than one type of blood is not an hypothesis. It is a proven fact. That truth is not colloquially proved. It is actually proved by testing and observation.

Formals proofs apply when a theory has been observed by repeating the process, and ALWAYS getting the same results Proofs are not limited to math and logic. To say logic can be proved is laughable.

If there is sod much evidence supporting evolution, post the evidence for natural selection. I have donned my prophecy hat and I predict you will not do that. All you might do is parrot the usual evo talking points which are not based on real science, indicating you don't understand real science.

 

[Skreeper]

When you understand "proved" get back to me. Until you do, you can revel in you ignorance of real science.

Get back to us when you recieved a basic science education so that you can avoid making silly mistakes like asking for proof when talking about science.

 

[omega2xx]

Lol, I sincerely do not care if Lamarck or others before Darwin were trying to integrate the origin of life into their various theories and hypotheses. They don't reflect any relevant modern theories, so I don't consider that relevant to the modern theory of evolution.

However, considering that Lamarck was the first person to come up with a theory of evolution, I did look into it; his theory doesn't cover the origin of life either, so you are incorrect; in the beginning, evolution did not talk about the origin of life itself.


Nope. The term "primordial soup" was first used in 1929, and the first cohesive argument for abiogenesis is from 1924. The closest thing to a primordial soup was mentioned by Darwin as a vague mention of "a warm little pond". He considered the possibility that life had naturalistic origins, but never expanded on it in any regard. You are simply incorrect.


If you are referring to Oparin, you are misunderstanding the point of his experiment. Complex cell generation is considered to be a process that takes too long to observe in a human lifetime, he was just demonstrating that under certain conditions, organic molecules needed for life form.

Plus, simple replicating cells formed in an abiogenesis experiment in 2013. Emphasis on simple, they don't have all of the cell parts modern ones do and their division is a consequence of their growth rather than a coordinated process by the cells.

But hey, since abiogenesis hasn't been tested near as extensively as evolution, it does bear the label of hypothesis rather than theory.


-_- dude, Darwin didn't even know about DNA, why would I have any faith directly in him? Additionally, no one has demonstrably seen any deities, but we have seen populations change over time, so I just trust what is observable over what isn't. My reaction to evolution being disproven would be interest, so don't overestimate my emotional reliance on the scientific process. I go with the conclusions best supported by the evidence, no more and no less.

If you was as old as I am, 85, you would KNOW the the TOE originally included the origin of life. Oparin did not experiment, he only theorized how life might have possible happened. Spontaneous generation has been disproved long ago.

 

[omega2xx]

Grow up, it's not the "show evidence of evolution to Omega" thread. If you wonder why "evos" are unwilling it's because of the tiresome antics of creationists who lie and pretend that they have never been "shown evidence".

Remember this....

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

or this

Evidence shown to Omega

LOL.

Thanks for confirming you don't have a clue as to what constitutes scientific evidence.

All of those links only parroted the usual evo talking points and not one of them explained HOW. One did mention mutations,which only exposes the evo lack of understanding mutations.

You can't show one example of a mutation causing a change of species.

Mutation do make changes in the offspring, but they are not small and are usually harmful. Evidently you do not understand that time will not change proven scientific laws.

 

[omega2xx]

Never? How do you know that?

Because it is genetically impossible. Do you really think they have been observed?



Eh? What do you mean?[/QUOTE]

Do you really not understand "dominant" and "recessive" genes?

 

[omega2xx]

Get back to us when you recieved a basic science education so that you can avoid making silly mistakes like asking for proof when talking about science.

all of you evos are afraid of the word "PROOF." How sad.

 

[Skreeper]

all of you evos are afraid of the word "PROOF." How sad.

This has nothing to do with being afraid. We are just trying to educate you a little bit when it comes to terminology in science.