Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

xianghua said:

since you cant even answer a to a simple question about this topic i think that the same will be good for you.

Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where I said we'd already discussed this? I don't know what your problem is, but constantly asking people the same questions over and over while ignoring prior discussions where they had already answered them is poor discussion etiquette.

If want my answer to this question, search the forum archives.

tas8831 said:

No, you really don't.

Analogies, assertions, 'thought experiments', etc. are not evidence.

It was sure cool how the creationists that replied in this thread tried to dismiss the OP and change the topic rather than deal with it.

Typical.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the lies.

tas8831 said:

PART 1

They will often start by re-defining vestigial, or by emphasizing some part of the accepted definition while downplaying or ignoring other parts.

Click to expand...

What is wrong with that? I think it is perfectly logic and scientific. Blame the definition, not the one who criticize it.

Based on that, you can delete the rest of part I, and the part II or III is no longer needed.

juvenissun said:

What is wrong with that?

Click to expand...

Redefining accepted terms to make an argument is the sign of a poor argument.

pitabread said:

Redefining accepted terms to make an argument is the sign of a poor argument.

Click to expand...

What is wrong to argue about a definition? What are people (include you) afraid of in doing that?
I think it is one of the most valuable and the most fundamental thing to do. if a definition is not right, then all arguments based on that definition would be meaningless.

People are afraid because too much stuff has been built upon that wrong definition. But that is exactly what a revolution idea is about. Go back to make the definition right.

juvenissun said:

What is wrong to argue about a definition? What are people (include you) afraid of in doing that?
I think it is one of the most valuable and the most fundamental thing to do. if a definition is not right, then all arguments based on that definition would be meaningless.

Click to expand...

I agree it's important to have a good definition, and one would typically invoke an authoritative source for the definition based on the context in which it is being used.

Where I find arguments over definitions arise is when people either have made up their own definition for something, or they are attempting to equivocate over a definition usually based on incorrect contextual usage. It is in these cases where arguing over a definition makes for a poor argument.

pitabread said:

I agree it's important to have a good definition, and one would typically invoke an authoritative source for the definition based on the context in which it is being used.

Where I find arguments over definitions arise is when people either have made up their own definition for something, or they are attempting to equivocate over a definition usually based on incorrect contextual usage. It is in these cases where arguing over a definition makes for a poor argument.

Click to expand...

If so, it is not something to be irritated about. It is a common strategy used by anyone who does not want to agree. YOU, used the same strategy somewhere sometime. The key is (your job): to pin point where the problem really and exactly is, if it is not on the definition. First, you NEED to clarify that what they said has nothing to do with the definition.

juvenissun said:

If so, it is not something to be irritated about. It is a common strategy used by anyone who does not want to agree.

Click to expand...

It's a transparently poor one.

YOU, used the same strategy somewhere sometime.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to something specific I have said in the past or are you just making an unfounded charge?

pitabread said:

The Theory of Evolution is foundational to modern biology and an applied science. So yeah, it's kinda relevant.

Click to expand...

Sure, if it's only ToE. Where ToE has problems is with origins. ToE argumentators usually avoid it, but they can't avoid chemical evolution. This is where the creationist, such as myself, brings in origins.

However, yesterday I heard a simpler argument. Who better to argue against ToE than an evolutionist.

Evolutionary scientist admits theory’s major flaws
EVOLUTION | Gerd Müller notes evolution doesn’t adequately explain life’s origins or complexity
by Julie Borg
Posted 9/07/17, 12:33 pm
Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.

Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.

Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.

Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Canadian musician Leonard Cohen once said, “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.” Perhaps the ever-widening cracks in the theory of evolution will let some of the light of God’s truth shine into the scientific world.

jamesbond007 said:

Sure, if it's only ToE. Where ToE has problems is with origins.

Click to expand...

The origin of life is not within the scope of the ToE.

pitabread said:

Are you referring to something specific I have said in the past or are you just making an unfounded charge?

Click to expand...

Not now. I have a very short memory in this forum. But it is certainly not unfounded. Next time, I will show you when you made the same mistake again.

It seems I just pointed out your mistake in another thread just a few days ago. Can't remember what that was.

juvenissun said:

Not now. I have a very short memory in this forum. But it is certainly not unfounded. Next time, I will show you when you made the same mistake again.

Click to expand...

You do that.

pitabread said:

You do that.

Click to expand...

If you do not offend me, I will.

juvenissun said:

If you do not offend me, I will.

Click to expand...

It probably didn't come across in the text, but my post was dry sarcasm. In truth, I don't care.

pitabread said:

The origin of life is not within the scope of the ToE.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Atheists are usually wrong. At least, Gerd Mueller is honest enough to admit ToE's weaknesses.

If you do not understand ToE sufficiently to be able to argue origins, then we can start with chemical evolution. Prior to it was the pseudoscientific spontaneous generation which was part of ToE.

spontaneous generation | Examples & Experiments

jamesbond007 said:

Wrong.

Click to expand...

Nope.

I'm sure that at some point, abiogenesis will become encapsulated in the theory of evolution (perhaps in a broader "theory of life").

But the current theory of evolution is not explicitly dependent on abiogenesis. Especially given we still don't know exactly how the first life originated and there are still a number of competing abiogenesis hypotheses.

All that matters it that we have life. Which is not in dispute.