Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

Yes, it does. I am not the only one who read it that way. Subduction zone also responded the same as I did.

Okay, I get the gold star patience award for this.

Let's say a couple wants to have a baby. So they individually go to doctors to get their fertility checked. That would be testing the conditions necessary for them to have a baby. This was the purpose of the Miller-Urey experiments. Do the conditions make life possible.

It has little to do with the activity that is necessary for this couple to undertake in order for them to actually have a baby. Actually making the baby is a different exercise. That's not what the Miller-Urey experiment was trying to do.

That is absolutely my last attempt.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I agree with loudmouth.

That is hilarious!!! It should go on a T-shirt.

"I agree with Loudmouth"

Ha ha ha ha I'm going to make a fortune on that one!

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, I get the gold star patience award for this.

Let's say a couple wants to have a baby. So they individually go to doctors to get their fertility checked. That would be testing the conditions necessary for them to have a baby. This was the purpose of the Miller-Urey experiments. Do the conditions make life possible.

It has little to do with the activity that is necessary for this couple to undertake in order for them to actually have a baby. Actually making the baby is a different exercise. That's not what the Miller-Urey experiment was trying to do.

That is absolutely my last attempt.

I think it is obvious to everyone that you are changing your position after it became obvious it was wrong. This is quite obvious in your previous posts.

 

[tatteredsoul]

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

So here is my challenge to all my evolutionist friends, and other interested parties. Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false. We don't understand RNA, DNA, etc, so we have to remain silent and trust others. But there is one way that the average man CAN fight back, and that is by using the fossil record. We can all understand and SEE fossils. We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution.

So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see. The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk. My challenge is don’t give me a list of text names of supposed fossils, I want to see pictures, for if evolution is true there must be millions of them out there, and surely scientists want us to see them; we have thousands of species, supposedly all evolved. Can you find them? If you can’t provide me with proof from the only historical record we have, then you have been taught a lie, evolution never occurred.

Lol...

Do you know what forum you are on?

Admittedly, it is a great way to get replies to your post...

 

[Paterfamilia]

I think it is obvious to everyone that you are changing your position after it became obvious it was wrong. This is quite obvious in your previous posts.

If it's so obvious, why can't you prove that? What you're saying is "you may not have said it, but we all know what you meant." Bull again.

Now, why would I say they were trying to create life? This would be frankensteinish. Life is exceedingly complex, no one is going to create life in an experiment with a few chemicals and some electricity. These guys were top flight scientists according to all accounts.

That means they are not stupid. I know they are not stupid. They didn't propose to create life, nor did I ever think they were trying to.

They were trying to demonstrate that the conditions on ancient earth made possible the production of the fundamental building blocks of life.

Which is a PART of ABIOGENESIS. it isn't abiogenesis!

My point that I was arguing for is that there was a historic connection between the study of abiogenesis and evolution. That the two are fundamentally connected. That you can't have evolution without abiogenesis, and that the only reason there is a separation is that abiogenesis has proven to be utterly impossible to duplicate or even have a minuscule understanding of.

The purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment is trivial to my argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it's so obvious, why can't you prove that?

I already did.

"Historically, abiogenesis was certainly lumped in with naturalistic evolution. Remember the primordial soup and lightning and Miller-Urey etc.?

The current science of the time supposed that life in a microscope was so simple, it could have easily happened given the right conditions."--Paterfamilia, post 944

What you're saying is "you may not have said it, but we all know what you meant." Bull again.

You did say it, at least twice.

Now, why would I say they were trying to create life?

Because you had a mistaken idea of what the Miller-Urey experiment was.

 

[lasthero]

That is hilarious!!! It should go on a T-shirt.

"I agree with Loudmouth"

Ha ha ha ha I'm going to make a fortune on that one!

You asked if anyone agreed with what loudmouth wrote, and I wrote that I agreed.

Really fail to see the humor, but whatever.

 

[lasthero]

If it's so obvious, why can't you prove that? What you're saying is "you may not have said it, but we all know what you meant." Bull again.

Now, why would I say they were trying to create life? This would be frankensteinish. Life is exceedingly complex, no one is going to create life in an experiment with a few chemicals and some electricity. These guys were top flight scientists according to all accounts.

That means they are not stupid. I know they are not stupid. They didn't propose to create life, nor did I ever think they were trying to.

They were trying to demonstrate that the conditions on ancient earth made possible the production of the fundamental building blocks of life.

Which is a PART of ABIOGENESIS. it isn't abiogenesis!

My point that I was arguing for is that there was a historic connection between the study of abiogenesis and evolution. That the two are fundamentally connected. That you can't have evolution without abiogenesis, and that the only reason there is a separation is that abiogenesis has proven to be utterly impossible to duplicate or even have a minuscule understanding of.

The purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment is trivial to my argument.

Didn't you write that post #1041 was your last attempt?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Didn't you write that post #1041 was your last attempt?

Ha ha guilty as charged!

 

[Paterfamilia]

I already did.

"Historically, abiogenesis was certainly lumped in with naturalistic evolution. Remember the primordial soup and lightning and Miller-Urey etc.?

The current science of the time supposed that life in a microscope was so simple, it could have easily happened given the right conditions."--Paterfamilia, post 944

Yes exactly. Thank you. Full circle.

Current science supposed that life could have formed many multiple times given the right conditions.

The Miller-Urey experiments were conducted to test the conditions. That's what I thought, that's what I knew. That's the end of the story.

You can have the last word ha ha I am done with this particular point.

 

[Paterfamilia]

You asked if anyone agreed with what loudmouth wrote, and I wrote that I agreed.

Really fail to see the humor, but whatever.

Cmon now that was pretty funny!

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes exactly. Thank you. Full circle.

Current science supposed that life could have formed many multiple times given the right conditions.

The Miller-Urey experiments were conducted to test the conditions. That's what I thought, that's what I knew. That's the end of the story.

It is also wrong. The M-U experiments were conducted to see under what conditions amino acids form, not life. That's the whole point.

 

[lasthero]

Cmon now that was pretty funny!

Word of wisdom: If you're the only one laughing at your joke, it's probably not funny.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Ha ha ha ha!

 

[Paterfamilia]

Okay, hopefully that is your last word.

This is why I like the formal debate format.

Speaking of which, would you kindly state your position that you are going to be arguing for?

And do you have an idea when you would be ready to proceed?

And if I remember you prefer sticking to peer-reviewed citations. That's fine with me, although of course the narrative would be necessarily condensed and simplified. Correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, hopefully that is your last word.

This is why I like the formal debate format.

Speaking of which, would you kindly state your position that you are going to be arguing for?

And do you have an idea when you would be ready to proceed?

And if I remember you prefer sticking to peer-reviewed citations. That's fine with me, although of course the narrative would be necessarily condensed and simplified. Correct?

I would like the debate to be centered on human origins since we have a lot of genetics and fossils we could potentially discuss. In the end, this is the center of the ID/creationism v. Evolution debate, the relation of Man to the rest of the biological world.

I would suggest that we start a thread in the Creation/Evolution Formal Debates forum. We should set out the rules in the first few posts before plunging in. We should also start a Peanut Gallery thread for those who wish to comment so that they don't comment in the debate thread itself.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I would like the debate to be centered on human origins since we have a lot of genetics and fossils we could potentially discuss. In the end, this is the center of the ID/creationism v. Evolution debate, the relation of Man to the rest of the biological world.

I would suggest that we start a thread in the Creation/Evolution Formal Debates forum. We should set out the rules in the first few posts before plunging in. We should also start a Peanut Gallery thread for those who wish to comment so that they don't comment in the debate thread itself.

Hmmm that seems pretty open-ended. Did you decide against the genetic relationship between apes and humans? If so, could you narrow it down a little? As the party "arguing for" you would be starting us off, so pick your best subject!

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ I have a question. As an atheist, upon what do you ground your moral ontology?

Give me the ist or the ism if you don't mind.

Not a trick question - just curious.

It is rather simple. If you can think rationally there is no guarantee that you will always be at the "top of the food chain". In other words you may go anywhere in life from owning your own business to being homeless on the street (though most of those are there because of substance abuse issues) still you could very easily be in the upper class or the lower class. The best system is one that treats everyone fairly. In other words the golden rule is not only "nice" it is logical. If what you do causes undue or unnecessary or unearned pain and distress it is wrong. I can see imprisoning felons because they are a threat to everyone, not just themselves. My feelings on this are not too different from judges. I could go into detail on personal experience I have had with some felons that I have met. At any rate morality is not difficult at all. If a person has to rely on someone else to tell him what is moral or not there could be something seriously wrong with that person. You probably got your morality from the same place that I got mine. I don't know of anyone that got their morality from the Bible. Biblical morality is actually rather evil if you look at it seriously.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmmm that seems pretty open-ended. Did you decide against the genetic relationship between apes and humans? If so, could you narrow it down a little? As the party "arguing for" you would be starting us off, so pick your best subject!

I would love to focus on genetics, but I didn't want to limit any arguments you wanted to make. I would also hope that you would be arguing for the special creation of humans, or whatever your position will be. You should try and make as strong of an argument for your position as I will make for mine. I would expect that you will do more than try to argue against evolution and actually provide some positive evidence for your case.

I will start a thread with a post outlining the guidelines and "rules" (nothing too strict) for the debate. If you respond with your agreement, then we can proceed.

 

[Paterfamilia]

It is rather simple. If you can think rationally there is no guarantee that you will always be at the "top of the food chain". In other words you may go anywhere in life from owning your own business to being homeless on the street (though most of those are there because of substance abuse issues) still you could very easily be in the upper class or the lower class. The best system is one that treats everyone fairly. In other words the golden rule is not only "nice" it is logical. If what you do causes undue or unnecessary or unearned pain and distress it is wrong. I can see imprisoning felons because they are a threat to everyone, not just themselves. My feelings on this are not too different from judges. I could go into detail on personal experience I have had with some felons that I have met. At any rate morality is not difficult at all. If a person has to rely on someone else to tell him what is moral or not there could be something seriously wrong with that person. You probably got your morality from the same place that I got mine. I don't know of anyone that got their morality from the Bible. Biblical morality is actually rather evil if you look at it seriously.

OK, so basically you are a subjectivist and you ground your morality in your intuition, and you suppose that everyone else does as well. Is that about right?

Thank you for your answer by the way. Well said.