Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (3)

[Loudmouth]

Where have I ignored the present.

Everytime you ignore natural processes producing new species.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Whatever man is able to do then our creator would do better.

When man designs the results do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

When life evolves it falls into a nested hierarchy.

Life falls into a nested hierarchy.

You are ignoring these very basic observations.

If God added a new creature to the world today you would still assume it was a product of evolution

Why would God be limited to a nested hierarchy when man is not?

 

[Smidlee]

Everytime you ignore natural processes producing new species.

Observed Instances of Speciation

I remember reading someone posted before who actually took the time and reveal Talk Origins examples were very weak. I learn a long time ago Talk Origins is only reliable to show what "internet" evolutionist believe and not what most scientist actually claims or believes. Talk Orgins is the evolutionist's "Answer in Genesis".

When man designs the results do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

When life evolves it falls into a nested hierarchy.

Life falls into a nested hierarchy.

You are ignoring these very basic observations.

Man designs can indeed be put into a nested hierarchy.

Why would God be limited to a nested hierarchy when man is not?

Who said God is limited to the nested hierarchy. Why do you believe your nature god /evolution would produce the nested hierarchy. Why would a random unguided process produces a nested hierarchy?

 

[Dizredux]

I remember reading someone posted before who actually took the time and reveal Talk Origins examples were very weak. I learn a long time ago Talk Origins is only reliable to show what "internet" evolutionist believe and not what most scientist actually claims or believes. Talk Orgins is the evolutionist's "Answer in Genesis".

Far from it. Did you check it out. I simply entered talk origins awards on Google and got this Talk Origins Archive Awards Page
Far too much to post here so take a look. T.O., while beginning to be a little out of date is still one of the most respected sources for this kind of information there is. Just look at the universities and colleges that use it in their classes as a source.

It is a good idea to check out your statements before posting. Otherwise you stand a chance of looking a little foolish like you do here.

Man designs can indeed be put into a nested hierarchy.

Who said God is limited to the nested hierarchy. Why do you believe your nature god /evolution would produce the nested hierarchy. Why would a random unguided process produces a nested hierarchy?

Oh my, another pratt. Evolution is not a random process. There are random elements involved but it is not considered to be random in the overall dynamics of the process.

Smidlee, I had thought better of you but lately you have been posting things that are easily shown to be incorrect. It does not make you look very good and I have read enough of your posts to know that you are capable of much more that this.


Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

Oh my, another pratt. Evolution is not a random process. There are random elements involved but it is not considered to be random in the overall dynamics of the process.

Evolution is nature is far from a random process but it's far from being Darwinian evolution even more.

Smidlee, I had thought better of you but lately you have been posting things that are easily shown to be incorrect. It does not make you look very good and I have read enough of your posts to know that you are capable of much more that this.


Dizredux

As other have mention many times before Evolution doesn't predicted the nested hierarchy but assumes it.

Far from it. Did you check it out. I simply entered talk origins awards on Google and got this Talk Origins Archive Awards Page
Far too much to post here so take a look. T.O., while beginning to be a little out of date is still one of the most respected sources for this kind of information there is. Just look at the universities and colleges that use it in their classes as a source.

I used to quote Talk Origins to scientists (at least they claimed they were) in other forums years ago and was told it was badly overrated.

 

[Dizredux]

Evolution is nature is far from a random process but it's far from being Darwinian evolution even more.
As other have mention many times before Evolution doesn't predicted the nested hierarchy but assumes it.

Could you back this up a little more showing how you arrived at this conclusion?

I used to quote Talk Origins to scientists (at least they claimed they were) in other forums years ago and was told it was badly overrated.

What I have seen are references to articles on T.O. from scientific sources I trust.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Not in the case of the carbon atoms. They form rather complex compounds in nature even outside of living systems.

Sure, and there's a reason, a purpose, for them forming. Goes back to the incomprehensible complexity and variety of all creation and if it's simply a product of time and chance.

 

[justlookinla]

Why would one simply assume one way or the other without evidence, if not for an a priori religious belief to require it?

Right, there are only assumptions, guesses and suppositions, faith based belief. Some take the available information

The rest actually doesn't assume anything and awaits the result of investigation, rational inquiry and testing.

Yes, there are Godless assumptions, guesses and suppositions for creation quite frequently. The Dawkins - Krauss' crowd is an example of such a view.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As other have mention many times before Evolution doesn't predicted the nested hierarchy but assumes it.

???? What does that even mean? If evolution "assumes" the nested hierarchy based on the characteristics of the theory, THAT IS A PREDICTION!!!!!!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

You assume we already know everything there is to know so that we can have a full understanding based on our current interpretation of current evidence

We don't need to know everything about everything to recognise certain specific claims as being patently false.

I can't count the number of times some new discovery is made and the scientists respond with, "This turns our current understanding of (fill in the blank) on it's head!

Yes. So?
Do you think we'll make a discovery one day that will show that Thor is the cause of thunder and lightning after all?

Certain things are simply demonstrably false.

Believe me, this happens a lot

Not in the way you pretend it does. New facts might have an impact on certain theories, but they don't nullify other facts.

So keep an open mind and understand that we may very well NOT have the best understanding of everything.

"Keeping an open mind" is not the same as considering every possible idea as being a viable idea.

To quote Dawkins: "we SHOULD have an open mind, just not so open that our brains are falling out..."

As it stands, it is arrogant to assume that we know everything when there is still so much we have to admit we don't understand.

Nobody assumes that we know everything. Except perhaps religious fundamentalists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Man designs can indeed be put into a nested hierarchy.

I'm not aware of any such hierarchy in any product line.
Care to give an example?

Who said God is limited to the nested hierarchy.

Just an observation... if evolution is false and god created creatures as is, what else can we assume? A nested hierarchy is what we observe.

Why do you believe your nature god /evolution would produce the nested hierarchy. Why would a random unguided process produces a nested hierarchy?

Because it's the inevitable consequence of a process that introduces change through reproduction. The way the mechanism of evolution works, a nested hierarchy is the only possible outcome.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As other have mention many times before Evolution doesn't predicted the nested hierarchy but assumes it.

That is just patently false.

When you have a mechanism like evolution, you inevitably end up with a "family tree". The "ends" of the branches on that tree will fall into a nested hierarchy. It's not an assumption.

It's an inevitable consequence of the process if it works like it is said to work in the theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right, there are only assumptions, guesses and suppositions, faith based belief. Some take the available information

Yes, there are Godless assumptions, guesses and suppositions for creation quite frequently. The Dawkins - Krauss' crowd is an example of such a view.

So, strawmanning an entire scientific field wasn't good enough for you?
Now, you feel the need to also decide for me what I assume and what I don't assume?

Why do we even bother talking to you...
I'ld have a more meaningfull conversation with my 3-year old nephew.

 

[lasthero]

Man designs can indeed be put into a nested hierarchy.

I hear this claim from creationists all the time, that human inventions can fall into an nested hierarchy. Funnily enough, I never see any real world examples of it either that or they just make a list of a bunch of things, as if that qualifies as a nested hierarchy. There's no reason for humans to limit themselves by designing things in a nested hierarchy.

 

[DerelictJunction]

An automated system requires lots and lots of code/information. An automated system that washes cars can't just randomly start building cars. A reptile can't randomly produce boobs and long hair without a very complex code to do so.

You have heard of chemical reactions and the physical "laws" they must follow, haven't you?
Your reply doesn't refute the possibility of a God setting up an automated system (DNA that is not completely immune to mutation, and a changing environment that affects the survivability the living things within it).

Just as man "spoke" to a computer with a keyboard and created World of Warcraft so could God spoke the universe into existence in it's present state just as Genesis claimed He did. Just because you see a tree that looks 50 years old in WoW doesn't mean the developers were trying to fool anyone that WoW was 50 years old.

Well, WoW is known to be a simulation. If the entities within it were sentient, they would think that tree was 50 years old and would think it was a deception if they found out that the tree was made yesterday.
Your response doesn't really address the depth of the appearance of age that your God would have had to put into the universe if Genesis is historically correct. There is no reason your God had to build a nested hierarchy within the morphology and DNA of all living things or made the radioactive isotope ratios within the rocks such that they all match up to indicate the Earth is extremely old. That's just 2 among many indications of evolution of life and very old universe.
To do all that, despite only making the universe 6000 years ago and making all life forms in one flash miracle, is deception of an incredible degree.

 

[DerelictJunction]

You assume we already know everything there is to know so that we can have a full understanding based on our current interpretation of current evidence. I can't count the number of times some new discovery is made and the scientists respond with, "This turns our current understanding of (fill in the blank) on it's head! This revolutionizes our thinking and will rewrite the books!" Believe me, this happens a lot. So keep an open mind and understand that we may very well NOT have the best understanding of everything. As it stands, it is arrogant to assume that we know everything when there is still so much we have to admit we don't understand.

No one claims that science knows everything. However, what is known conflicts with the Genesis account of creation.
The amount of fundamental knowledge that would have to be thrown out if Genesis is correct would be unprecedented. Most of the field of geology would have it's theories ripped asunder, along with biology, physics, and astronomy. The changes to the scientific world from Copernicus' and Galileo's theories would pale in comparison.

 

[justlookinla]

So, strawmanning an entire scientific field wasn't good enough for you?
Now, you feel the need to also decide for me what I assume and what I don't assume?

Why do we even bother talking to you...
I'ld have a more meaningfull conversation with my 3-year old nephew.

Of course you do. That's because you have issues with folks who dare dispute your atheistic Darwinist creationist worldview.

 

[Smidlee]

???? What does that even mean? If evolution "assumes" the nested hierarchy based on the characteristics of the theory, THAT IS A PREDICTION!!!!!!!

I totally disagree. A prediction is not after all the fact are in then assume evolution did it.

That is just patently false.

When you have a mechanism like evolution, you inevitably end up with a "family tree". The "ends" of the branches on that tree will fall into a nested hierarchy. It's not an assumption.

It's an inevitable consequence of the process if it works like it is said to work in the theory.

What mechanism are you referring to mutation plus selection? That's a total failure since in the recent decade they have learned about layer on top of layer of information and overlapping code which mean beneficial mutation not only extremely rare but unlikely to become fixed in a population. I know it may be a surprise but Neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt.

All Neo-Darwinism predictions are made after the facts are in yet has tons of failed predictions which they call co-evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course you do. That's because you have issues with folks who dare dispute your atheistic Darwinist creationist worldview.

No, I have issues with folk who misrepresent every word I say, who lie about what I say and who stuff their ears when I try to correct them - only to repeat the exact same falsehoods in the very next post.

Now, go on... being dishonest and deceitfull.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I totally disagree. A prediction is not after all the fact are in then assume evolution did it.

That's not how scientific predictions work dude.

In science, you build models (hypothesis / theories) on how stuff works.
Those models make predictions about what other data you should be able to find. It doesn't matter if that other data is already known or not.

It's not a "prediction" in the sense of "the future".
It's rather "if this and this is true, then that". that being the prediction.

Also, even assuming your concept, it's still valid. Not all genomes of all creatures are mapped. All creatures aren't even known, we continue to find species regurarly that were unkown till the find.

All those genomes that aren't mapped yet and those still unkown creatures are predicted to fall into a nested hierarchy by evolution theory.

What mechanism are you referring to mutation plus selection?

Evolution as a whole. The grand theory. Since you are arguing against it, I'll go ahead and assume that you know what that means. I'm pretty sure that it's naive of me to do that though.

That's a total failure since in the recent decade they have learned about layer on top of layer of information and overlapping code which mean beneficial mutation not only extremely rare but unlikely to become fixed in a population. I know it may be a surprise but Neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt.

So who received the Nobel prize for refuting evolution theory and why wasn't the entire scientific world (and beyond) not informed about that earth-shattering news?

All Neo-Darwinism predictions are made after the facts are in yet has tons of failed predictions which they call co-evolution.

You have an extremely warped view of how science is done.
It also strikes me how badly you deal with language...

We all know that words can mean different things in different contexts.

For example:
"this brick is light, not heavy".
"coca cola light"
"it's a bride light"

See?

Here's another example:
"Another TV pastor predicts the end of the world"
"This models predicts nested hierarchies in life"

The first is refering to telling the future.
The second is stating how a model can be tested and falsified.

 

[Dizredux]

I know it may be a surprise but Neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt.

I guess you should inform the biologists, paleontologists and related fields as they seem to be blissfully unaware of this.

Or

Could it be, even as a remote possibility, that you could be wrong?



Dizredux