New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[CabVet]

I see you Arab-phoned "theory of" into his post.

Did you anticipate me responding with this?

Cosmic Evolution

Nothing was "arab phoned" there, the subject of this thread has always been the theory of evolution (biological evolution to be even more specific). Evolution is constantly used for short. What you guys are trying to do is the equivalent of saying that I don't believe in Jesus because my neighbor is called Jesus and he is not a saint.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing was "arab phoned" there, the subject of this thread has always been the theory of evolution (biological evolution to be even more specific). Evolution is constantly used for short. What you guys are trying to do is the equivalent of saying that I don't believe in Jesus because my neighbor is called Jesus and he is not a saint.

As Mr. Hovind so aptly points out, when a person wants to discuss evolution, their default position is biological evolution; and what they are doing is skipping about 9 billion years of evolution, just to remove all odds against them.

In other words, they want to start with life already up and running; and just talk about one tiny segment of the theory.

 

[CabVet]

As Mr. Hovind so aptly points out, when a person wants to discuss evolution, their default position is biological evolution; and what they are doing is skipping about 9 billion years of evolution, just to remove all odds against them.

As Mr. Hovind so aptly lies, every scientists' default position is that there was no evolution. That is called the null hypothesis. What came before the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the evolution (change) of life.

In other words, they want to start with life already up and running; and just talk about one tiny segment of the theory.

The origin of life through natural processes has another name, it is called abiogenesis. Nobody knows how gravity originated, yet that does not invalidate gravity.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

As Mr. Hovind so aptly points out, when a person wants to discuss evolution, their default position is biological evolution; and what they are doing is skipping about 9 billion years of evolution, just to remove all odds against them.

In other words, they want to start with life already up and running; and just talk about one tiny segment of the theory.

That's because the theory of biological evolution is only about life. I'm more than happy to discuss cosmology, geology, abiogenesis etc but labeling all science as as the one bête noir called evolution is just plain dishonest.

 

[CabVet]

That's because the theory of biological evolution is only about life. I'm more than happy to discuss cosmology, geology, abiogenesis etc but labeling all science as as the one bête noir called evolution is just plain dishonest.

It seems like dishonesty does not matter as long as it advances their agenda.

 

[AV1611VET]

What came before the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.

Physics Central disagrees.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's because the theory of biological evolution is only about life. I'm more than happy to discuss cosmology, geology, abiogenesis etc but labeling all science as as the one bête noir called evolution is just plain dishonest.

Physics Central disagrees.

 

[CabVet]

Physics Central disagrees.

Common sense, reason, logic and the real world don't.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Physics Central disagrees.

Do they also think that science is a bête noir to be denied at every turn?

 

[pgp_protector]

I see you Arab-phoned "theory of" into his post.

Did you anticipate me responding with this?

Cosmic Evolution

Ah AV complaining about others doing what they themselves do.

Wasn't their a name for what's that called ???

You mean, like here?


My advice to you is: keep looking.

ah ah ah, they didn't say "ignorant, Bronze Age, goat herders" like you quoted.
unless you're saying misquoting is ok now?

Is that why e-scientists exclusively refer to the Biblical Jews as "ignorant, Bronze Age, goat herders"?

We had a missionary to Israel at our church just recently, and while at his table, I told him:

"I deal with atheists online, and the one question I like to ask them is if Israel is the Promised Land. If they're honest, they'll say, 'no.'"

 

[nuttypiglet]

As Mr. Hovind so aptly lies, every scientists' default position is that there was no evolution. That is called the null hypothesis. What came before the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the evolution (change) of life.



The origin of life through natural processes has another name, it is called abiogenesis. Nobody knows how gravity originated, yet that does not invalidate gravity.

So where is the line between abiogenesis and evolution? There must be a defined line. Is it when you get a cell which is living? which is odd as science cannot even define life. So how exactly do you create the line, and what are the criteria? when does abiogenesis become evolution?

 

[nuttypiglet]

You mean like a man made from dirt, a woman from a rib and a talking snake?


First of all, science is not a person. Therefore science cannot be desperate or happy or sad. I realize you hate science, but science cannot hate you back. Secondly, it was hardly the "biggest scam in history."


Yes and the editors of Nat Geo learned a hard lesson from the incident. Now they make sure that the stuff they write about passes peer review first, which the fossil in question did not.


Nope. As I said, science is not a person. It cannot fall for anything. Secondly, the experts who examined the fossil told the buyers that it was a mosaic. They rejected the original paper. They fell for nothing. The writers pressed and the editors of Nat Geo foolishly went along with them.


What look on whos face? I'm not a Nat Geo editor. No creationist showed it was a mosaic. Your fantasy drooling taking credit for something you did nothing to accomplish is pathetic.

Science is made up of people, without its worshippers it wouldn't exist. I don't hate science, I just want it to be HONEST which I've stated before. Even in the science of medicines there is great dishonesty, it's all about money now.

Laurence Tisdall is a qualified microbiologist and has spent years of his life in genetics. He disagrees with evolution because as he says (like creationists) the odds against it are far too great.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is made up of people, without its worshippers it wouldn't exist. I don't hate science, I just want it to be HONEST which I've stated before. Even in the science of medicines there is great dishonesty, it's all about money now.

Laurence Tisdall is a qualified microbiologist and has spent years of his life in genetics. He disagrees with evolution because as he says (like creationists) the odds against it are far too great.

How is evolution dishonest in the least little way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So where is the line between abiogenesis and evolution? There must be a defined line. Is it when you get a cell which is living? which is odd as science cannot even define life. So how exactly do you create the line, and what are the criteria? when does abiogenesis become evolution?

The line will probably drawn at the ability for a cell to replicate itself.

Is that good enough for you?

 

[AceHero]

Well as Evols keep asking for examples or evidence, then I'm going to ask for some now. I want evidence for the following....

Evidence that the Universe came from a Multiverse and not a creator.
Evidence that the code of life (DNA) can form by natural events to start life.
Evidence that Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Now be careful with this one because I want answers to include the birds breathing apparatus.
Evidence that shows the 'mind' is inside the human Brain. Don't just refer to electrical signals which can be just about anything.

The part I bolded really has nothing to do with evolution.

No, evolution of the Universe and evolution of life. Evolution is a term used in at least 6 areas.

Please stop using Jack Chick and Kent Hovind as sources. The theory of evolution only covers the origin of species or the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

But the Chick tracts are so entertaining!

Science is made up of people, without its worshippers it wouldn't exist. I don't hate science, I just want it to be HONEST which I've stated before.

No, you've already made your mind up, so you won't accept science unless it adheres to your preformed conclusions.

 

[OllieFranz]

So where is the line between abiogenesis and evolution? There must be a defined line. Is it when you get a cell which is living? which is odd as science cannot even define life. So how exactly do you create the line, and what are the criteria? when does abiogenesis become evolution?

There is no overlap. Abiogenesis stops as soon as there are enough living things that any new "living" molecule will be eaten before it can replicate. There would still be plenty of resources for the small population of living things. Evolution pressures have not begun.

Evolution works on whole populations. The population is under pressure, either resources are becoming scarce, or there are more or better predators, or the climate has changed. Mutations, which have been happening at a more steady rate has introduced variations from one individual to another. Some individuals were better equiped for the changing conditions than others. They live longer and have more offspring than the others. More of the next generation have the traits that helped their parents survive. As long as the pressure continues, the population will continue to be changed, one generation at a time. When the pressure eases, evolution slows down. Some species have been virtually unchanged for millenia, others have been under constant, everchanging pressures and have had to adapt to each in turn.

 

[Split Rock]

Science is made up of people, without its worshippers it wouldn't exist.

Science is a tool for investigating our world, nothing more. It has no "worshippers," unlike creationism.

I don't hate science,

Sure you do. It is what we use here to tell you your religious dogma is wrong.

I just want it to be HONEST which I've stated before. Even in the science of medicines there is great dishonesty, it's all about money now.

If you were HONEST (all caps) you would not be implying science is a religion.

Laurence Tisdall is a qualified microbiologist and has spent years of his life in genetics. He disagrees with evolution because as he says (like creationists) the odds against it are far too great.

If that is true, it shows that microbiologists shouldn't claim to be mathematicians. Besides, if he is a microbiologist, that makes him a worshipper of science according to you.

 

[nuttypiglet]

How is evolution dishonest in the least little way?

the scientists representing evolution are dishonest. They don't admit how weak the fossil record is for evidence. They don't admit how weak genomes are to proving evolution and they still bleat on about how we have vestiges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the scientists representing evolution are dishonest. They don't admit how weak the fossil record is for evidence. They don't admit how weak genomes are to proving evolution and they still bleat on about how we have vestiges.

The fossil record is extremely strong in supporting evolution.

Creationists have no explanation for it that is not easily debunked.

The DNA record is even stronger for evolution. Just the thought of ERV's makes creationist's heads spin around like Linda Blair's in the Exorcist.

And yes, we do have vestigial organs. Do you even know what a vestigial organ is? No bleating needed. You have that one backwards. If there is any bleating it is by the creationists who do not understand why the appendix is a vestigial organ.

 

[nuttypiglet]

The fossil record is extremely strong in supporting evolution.

Creationists have no explanation for it that is not easily debunked.

The DNA record is even stronger for evolution. Just the thought of ERV's makes creationist's heads spin around like Linda Blair's in the Exorcist.

And yes, we do have vestigial organs. Do you even know what a vestigial organ is? No bleating needed. You have that one backwards. If there is any bleating it is by the creationists who do not understand why the appendix is a vestigial organ.

The fossil record has been up and down like a yoyo, showing complete transitions of life forms, but then removed as proved wrong.
DNA shows exactly what anyone with the slightest amount of common sense would expect. You look at a chimp next to a human and you would expect the DNA to be very similar. If you look at a slug against a human, you would expect different results. It's called common code for common traits.
The appendix is what? don't make me laugh. This was rebuked years ago and it has been shown that the appendix has a specific purpose. It is not and was not a part of digesting vegetation when we were supposed to be rabbit like.