Any evidence for objective peer review?

[npetreley]

Originally posted by DonaldW112


You agreed with the fact of evolution there and it is the same here.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I agree that mutation occurs. I agree that selection occurs (with a caveat, but I can deal with that elsewhere). I agree that mutation can leads to reproductive isolation.

But you want to take the above, mix them up and extrapolate them to mean a cell can evolve to a man. That is purely the result of your imagination. That is NOT a fact.

The result of evolution -- all organisms on the earth share a common ancestor

Pure fantasy. All of the evidence you can present to demonstrate common ancestry also demonstrates discreet, intelligent design. It's just a matter of how you look at it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


Sans reference of course.

It was not sans reference at all. Look for the posts and you'll find the references with the quotes. I'd look, myself, but if you're too lazy to search for the posts before making accusations, I'm not going to do the work for you.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


It was not sans reference at all. Look for the posts and you'll find the references with the quotes. I'd look, myself, but if you're too lazy to search for the posts before making accusations, I'm not going to do the work for you.

What posts? You claim you've provided quotes by Eldridge and Dawkins. I've seen no such quotes in this thread. Could you please point to me such a post by you? It's not my duty to trudge through every post you've made on this board or elsewhere to determine if you have ever provided references. In my experience, you hardly ever provided references with quotes. Furthermore, how am I to even tell which quotes you refer to in this instance?

I too have provided quotes on this forum by Dawkins, Gould, Futuyma, and Eldridge that prove you are absolutely wrong. Go find them yourself, it's not my job to do your work for you.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
All of the evidence you can present to demonstrate common ancestry also demonstrates discreet, intelligent design.

Discreet, intelligent design that also happens to look just like evolution. Hey, I think there's a name for that. Isn't it called theistic evolution?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I have no idea what you're talking about.

I agree that mutation occurs. I agree that selection occurs (with a caveat, but I can deal with that elsewhere). I agree that mutation can leads to reproductive isolation.

But you want to take the above, mix them up and extrapolate them to mean a cell can evolve to a man. That is purely the result of your imagination. That is NOT a fact.

For the record, folks, Nick has been asked to substantiate this accusation of poor science for us in this thread . He has yet to oblige.

Pure fantasy. All of the evidence you can present to demonstrate common ancestry also demonstrates discreet, intelligent design. It's just a matter of how you look at it.

Check back later in this thread to see how it is only a matter of how you look at the evidence!!

I'm sure that Nick will be there backing up this assertion very soon!

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by npetreley


I have no idea what you're talking about.

I agree that mutation occurs. I agree that selection occurs (with a caveat, but I can deal with that elsewhere). I agree that mutation can leads to reproductive isolation.

How do mutations lead to reproductive isolation? Do you know what you are talking about?

Pure fantasy. All of the evidence you can present to demonstrate common ancestry also demonstrates discreet, intelligent design. It's just a matter of how you look at it.

Maybe but you can you tell me how I tell the difference between intelligent design and non-intelligent design? Also, what if God used evolution to create man et.al.? Then you have your intellegent design and common descent? What is wrong with this?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

I too have provided quotes on this forum by Dawkins, Gould, Futuyma, and Eldridge that prove you are absolutely wrong. Go find them yourself, it's not my job to do your work for you.

Huh? How do YOU and YOUR quotes fit into this? When did I say you posted anything sans reference?

I shouldn't really dignify this silly thread of discussion with a link, but here's one of my posts including quotes with references (scroll down to message #60):

http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=176556#post176556

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


Discreet, intelligent design that also happens to look just like evolution. Hey, I think there's a name for that. Isn't it called theistic evolution?

Even your own guy, Richard Dawkins, says you've got this logic backwards. The whole premise for his book "The blind watchmaker" is that living creatures LOOK like they were designed.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by DonaldW112

Maybe but you can you tell me how I tell the difference between intelligent design and non-intelligent design?

Yes, that's easy.

Living things are the product intelligent design.

The arguments of evolutionists are the product of non-intelligent design.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Even your own guy, Richard Dawkins, says you've got this logic backwards. The whole premise for his book "The blind watchmaker" is that living creatures LOOK like they were designed.

...LOOK on superficial examination, in isolation... like they were designed. Which doesn't take away from DonaldW112's remarks at all. Actually, I can think of no way to understand Don's remarks in such a way as to create a conflict between Dawkin's premise and what he said....

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by npetreley


Yes, that's easy.

Living things are the product intelligent design.

The arguments of evolutionists are the product of non-intelligent design.

Ah, poor npetreley. Instead of answering the question, the best that he can do is fall back on inaccurate insults.

 

[Starscream]

Great! Evolve a cell into a man for me.

My wife is in the process of transforming a cell into a man (or woman, we don't know the sex yet) right now. She's still got 6 months to go in this 9 month project but I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Starscream


My wife is in the process of transforming a cell into a man (or woman, we don't know the sex yet) right now. She's still got 6 months to go in this 9 month project but I'll let you know how it goes.

Congratulations! I have 3 kids, and I'm madly in love with them all. I recently became a laid-off-single-dad, and let me tell you that it is only by God's grace that I'm surviving, 'cause I can guarantee you it sure ain't MY strength that's getting me through this! But they're worth everything.

Anyway, I wish you the happiest of experiences and God's overflowing blessings always for you, your wife, and your family.

 

[randman]

My experience with evolutionists on the web has been they steadfastly refuse to admit that Eldridge and Gould did in fact state that the fossil record is problematic for evolution. They always claim the quotes are out of context as if they are mindlessly reading from Talkorigins web-site, but the quotes are almost never out of context. PE was proposed primarily because the fossil evidence does not actually document evolution. It doesn't show species evolving into more species and so on.

 

[randman]

Jerry,

Your comment to back up is just lame. It is like you guys all play from the same play-book, like some kind of cult. He has backed up his claims, but alas, we know that you can't prove anything to one who doesn't wish to beleive.

Tell me something. Why did Eldridge and Gould propose PE? What data did they feel necessitated PE as a theory? Please be specific.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

Thanx for pointing me to the quotes you are refering too.

Dawkins is slightly simplyfing and underestimating the data we have from the Cambrian "Explosion." Your handwaving around his response to creationists does little establish that their views of the explosion are right. Nick can you tell me when the cambrian explosion occured on your timescale for the history of Earth?

The comments by Niles Eldridge is addressing the ambivilance the field of paleontology has in looking at the broad picture and characterizing trends of evolution. For the most part, paleontologists are looking to find new fossils and "fill in the gaps." In other words, they would like to determine how taxa relate to one another, but don't have much interest in looking to explain the forces that shaped them.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
My experience with evolutionists on the web has been they steadfastly refuse to admit that Eldridge and Gould did in fact state that the fossil record is problematic for evolution. They always claim the quotes are out of context as if they are mindlessly reading from Talkorigins web-site, but the quotes are almost never out of context.

But you, however, have read the original sources in their entirety. Do you stake your honor and integrity that Gould and Eldridge haven't been misquote and their work represented by you?

PE was proposed primarily because the fossil evidence does not actually document evolution. It doesn't show species evolving into more species and so on.

Wrong. PE was actually proposed to show that the stocaticness of the fossil record was not due to lack of fossil finds, but to the actual process of evolution on populations. The nature of the fossil record is due to the way sampling occurs and how evolution occurs.

 

[randman]

So Rufus, you are finally getting around to acknmowledging PE did come about due to the nature of the fossil record, and that PE advocates claimed it wasn't incompleteness primarily, but rather the mode of evolution was different.
Can you not see the staggering consequences of this?
Critics of evolution long contended the fossil record did not show evolution, at least not according to the evolutionary models at the time. They were right, but the evolutionists refused to admit it.
Now, Gould and Eldridge come along and basically state the same thing only with the caveat that the data can fir into their new model of evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium. Initially, many were simply unaware it seemed that the fossil record did show stasis and sudden appearance, despite critics pointing that out for decades.
Why were they unaware? Think about it.
This whole process shows how evolutionists selectively only consider data that supports their predetermined views, and unless that data can fit into evolutionary dogma, it is rejected. The fossil record did not change. The reason the evolutionists finally admitted to stasis and sudden appearance is that they could now admit to it and still claim a way that this could ("could" not does I might add) fit into an evolutionary model.
The implications of the actual process of PE coming about are simply staggering. Let's don't play word-smithing games. You know full well that PE was advocated because the fossil record did not fit into prior evolutionary models, or at least that is what Gould and Eldridge believed at that time.

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by randman
This whole process shows how evolutionists selectively only consider data that supports their predetermined views, and unless that data can fit into evolutionary dogma, it is rejected.

funny... for me it rather shows that when you have a well supported case (evidence and a new scientific theory), your critics are accepted, but when you want to throw out a theory without enough evidence or any competing scientific theory, you are rejected. Sounds like a healthy behaviour to me...

 

[randman]

We are talking about the data itself. What you are stating is that evolutionists do not consider data independently of a theory or model of how that data should be interpreted, and that if there is no model to interpret that data, they don't consider it. I fully agree with you on that, and that is why evolution is not real science.