Evolutionary debate

[SkyWriting]

Yeah... all those silly "Egghead musings." Like the ones that allowed you to be safe and comfie in your home with the air conditioning, and the tv, and the internet, and the microwave, and your cell phone, and your Playstation 3, etc., etc.

My happiest days are in a tent.
So your just making life more miserable for me in general.

You didn't answer my question... did you?

Yes, you missed it...
"But He "started" biological evolution with more than one cell from which all forms of life descended."

That's where we differ.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except for those scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology... but who cares what they say... right? Maybe you should read On the Origin of Species and show me where Darwin talks about chemical evolution. Or maybe you can tell me how the theory of evolution would change if your god poofed the first life into existance on earth. Or maybe you could stop repeating your mistaken assertions?

I'll make a new one then:

Most people think that Chemical Evolution (how life formed)
is part of "The Theory of Evolution."

As for differences, you already know the story of how life began:
—the fifth day.

—the sixth day.

 

[USincognito]

I'll make a new one then:

Most people think that Chemical Evolution (how life formed)
is part of "The Theory of Evolution."

Most people think a giraffe and zebra having sex and producing an okapi is evolution too.. but it's not.

That's why what most people think doesn't matter as much as what the actual scientists say.

(To me chemical evolution is what happens in stellar furnaces.)

 

[SkyWriting]

Really? Because this collection of essays present 29 powerful evidences for Macroevolution.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

I found two of them to be as weak an argument as one can make.

It said that because this was found, it disproved that. As the author was able to make up both arguments, he found one easy to disprove. Little wonder. I imagine the other 27 just as contrived.

The whole problem being that we don't have a scientific and current list of "Kinds" that God started with. These would define the separation between animals so that we could check for macroevolution that would prove or disprove these distinctions.

 

[USincognito]

I found two of them to be as weak an argument as one can make.

It said that because this was found, it disproved that. As the author was able to make up both arguments, he found one easy to disprove. Little wonder. I imagine the other 27 just as contrived.

Don't be so coy SW. Tell me which two and we can discuss them.

The whole problem being that we don't have a scientific and current list of "Kinds" that God started with.

I guess those baraminologists aren't working fast enough.

These would define the separation between animals so that we could check for macroevolution that would prove or disprove these distinctions.

Uh Oh, you're not going to be happy to see this

baraminologist Todd Wood determines A. sediba is in Homo holobaramin

 

[SkyWriting]

...Some books might speculate about the origin of life before going into chapters about evolution, but that doesn't make it part of the theory...

When "Chemical Evolution" is included with "The Theory of Evolution" then the two are connected. Textbooks, Dictionaries, and little else will change that.

Even Wikki-pedia fails to draw a clear distinction.

 

[SkyWriting]

Don't be so coy SW. Tell me which two and we can discuss them. I guess those baraminologists aren't working fast enough. Uh Oh, you're not going to be happy to see this

baraminologist Todd Wood determines A. sediba is in Homo holobaramin

I didn't mean that people are unable to make lists.
I meant that we don't have one to work with.
We would need this to properly define "macro evolution".

If you want to take issue or agree with some guy's list, go ahead.

 

[USincognito]

I found two of them to be as weak an argument as one can make.

It said that because this was found, it disproved that. As the author was able to make up both arguments, he found one easy to disprove. Little wonder. I imagine the other 27 just as contrived.

Don't be so coy SW. Tell me which two and we can discuss them.]

Why did you ignore this part? Come on SW. If those two evidences are as weak as you claim they are, you'll be able to defend that evalutation here.

Which two were they?

 

[SkyWriting]

...That's how science works: when there isn't much evidence, you say "I don't know how it happened". When there is evidence, you draw conclusions...

In theory.

In practice, the less evidence - the greater the speculation, and the more confident the conclusions. When the "evidence" is the most contrived and difficult to obtain (and double check) then the conclusions are as bold and sure as possible. Weather prediction is an example everyone is aware of.

Evolutionism has followed that pattern. The smaller the bone, the bigger the dinosaur. (mostly kidding)

 

[USincognito]

Weather prediction is an example everyone is aware of.

Actually it's not. It's an example of reverse confirmation bias. No one remembers the 360 forcasts a year that are correct, they only remember the 5 a year that were off or wrong or subject to a completely unforseen change.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually it's not. It's an example of reverse confirmation bias. No one remembers the 360 forcasts a year that are correct, they only remember the 5 a year that were off or wrong or subject to a completely unforseen change.

You are blessed with the spot in the country with predictable weather.
Below they are boasting about being accurate 4 out of 5 days.
For one...nobody officially monitors the accuracy.
Small wonder because:

Weather 2000 high precision forecasts are yielding 80% accuracy rates for hundreds of locations.

Will it rain or not?
Beyond ONE DAY, your OWN forecast is better using a coin flip.

The results of the temperature forecast comparison show that Provider A was correct
39 percent of the time while Provider B was correct
47 percent of the time. Climatology was correct
55 percent of the time, and Persistence was correct
65 percent of the time.
Results for the combined yes- / no-precipitation day forecasts, showed Provider A was correct
54 percent of the time, Provider B was correct
59 percent of the time, climatology was correct
60 percent of the time, and persistence was correct
70 percent of the time. The forecasts for yes-precipitation days only, show Provider A was correct
46 percent of the time, Provider B was correct only
19 percent of the time, climatology was correct
30 percent of the time, and the persistence forecast was correct
57 percent of the time.
UCCW - Experimental Long-Range Weather Predictions

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are blessed with the spot in the country with predictable weather.
Below they are boasting about being accurate 4 out of 5 days.
For one...nobody officially monitors the accuracy.
Small wonder because:

Weather 2000 high precision forecasts are yielding 80% accuracy rates for hundreds of locations.

And then there's the alternative -- completely ignoring all data, not even so much as looking out the window, and asking God what the weather's going to be.

What's the accuracy rate on that?

 

[USincognito]

I found two of them to be as weak an argument as one can make.

It said that because this was found, it disproved that. As the author was able to make up both arguments, he found one easy to disprove. Little wonder. I imagine the other 27 just as contrived.

Don't be so coy SW. Tell me which two and we can discuss them.

Still waiting.

You are blessed with the spot in the country with predictable weather.

Sorry bub, the adage, "if you don't like the weather in Texas, wait 15 minutes" wasn't coined for no reason. The only time it's consistent here is summer - like this on unfortunately - when hot and humid are almost a given.

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked you if you found a scientific theory (or hypothesis if you like) to replace evolution.

No, I haven't.

Why replace one heresy with another?

Evolution needs to be replaced with something non-scientific -- as in creationism.

And don't forget: creationism came first, not evolution.

It was junk science that [thinks it] replaced creationism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your baloney pile grows deeper with each post you make.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting Balderdash and bluffery.

"Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory."

Which is precisely what I said
You said "Chemical evolution [is] part of evolutionary theory". I said you claim that chemical evolution is part of biological evolution. What on Earth is the difference?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But why are they disagreeing with me?

Because they think you're wrong?

I quoted two other sources.

Should I just automatically agree with them -- like they did the Pluto vote -- and find out later it was rigged?

You're free to disagree, but in lieu of knowing anything about it, I defer to the experts.

 

[AV1611VET]

... I defer to the experts.

Which is who in this case?

My source here: 563?

Or Split Rock's source* here: 565?

* That is, himself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Which is who in this case?

My source here: 563?

Or Split Rock's source* here: 565?

* That is, himself.

If the disagreement is whether the various origin-of-the-moon ideas are hypotheses or theories, I would defer to your source's expertise and agree with you: they're theories.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the disagreement is whether the various origin-of-the-moon ideas are hypotheses or theories, I would defer to your source's expertise and agree with you: they're theories.

I've forgotten why I'm even arguing this in the first place!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've forgotten why I'm even arguing this in the first place!

Semantics may be the spice of life, but I think I'll stick with a nice Earl Grey