proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

I'm sorry, but you're entirely too irrational to talk to. I'm not going to believe for one second that you're that stupid.

IOW you can't offer any evidence for what you accept by faith alone. Now everyone knows what I knew from the beginning.

Thank you.

 

[Jimmy D]

The fool is the one who accept what someone says with no supporting evidence. To date you have not offered one bit of evidence for you you accept by faith alone.

Like six words from a book you haven't read?

If you want to continue this discussion, present some evidence you accept. Stare with the evidence Collins offered. So far all you have done is blow smoke.

It's pointless, I've seen the way that you hand wave anything presented to you without justification earlier in the thread, why waste my time.

I am not going to continue this discussion unless you start offering some evidence for what you or others say.

There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers providing evidence for common ancestry, from paleontology to genetics, can you not read them yourself?

I didn't join this discussion to convince you that the TOE is correct, merely to point out the flaws in your sorry quote mining.

Your misunderstanding about Giraffes "stretching their necks" demonstrates that you have trouble understanding even the most basic points being made. The fact that you couldn't understand how mistaken you were about the terms "ape" and "species" - even after it was pointed out to you - highlights your ignorance of the topic.

LOL, if you think I'm going to waste my time posting evidence to someone can't possibly understand it you are mistaken.

It is not me making assertions I can't / won't back up with empirical evidence.

 

[BradB]

-_-

really? You do understand that Time is an intrinsic property of this universe, right? Time started when this Universe started, therefore the entire concept of 'Before' the big bang is a non-sensical one. To even talk about 'before' this universe is to broadcast your complete ignorance of our fundamental understanding of the cosmology that underpins it.

Well now you've done it. You've opened a really big can of worms here. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, time, space and matter all began at the singularity when the universe "banged" into existence. But what is time exactly? We define time as the measured interval between events. And of course matter must exist in order to have any event to measure an interval between. So yes in that way time did come into existence when matter did. But we have to understand that time as we know it is merely a man made construct. Did you ever wonder what makes our measure of time the supreme measurement? I mean if you were born and raised on Venus then one day there would be equivalent to about 224 earth days. So by this we can easily see how time is indeed very relative to your base line and thus must be only a man made construct. However what if time were not defined as the interval between events, but rather as any interval in which any events could happen? That would mean from a logical stand point that time would exist in the absence of matter and actually be infinite in both directions of the time line. And I mean lets face it, since it is only a man made construct anyways then it is not at all illogical from our human perspective to speak of time before the universe existed.

This of course means that God could have plenty of time within which to have existed infinitely.

 

[BradB]

I see what you are saying. In what I've read and listened to on the website we are talking about they appear to be Biblical Creationists and use ID as a point as to why the Bible is correct in it's teachings and why evolution as not.

Yes that may be true. But did you know that many Muslim Creationist (or would the correct term be Koranian creationists?) use ID in the identically same way? The point here is that ID doesn't address the "who" question. It only points out that the evidence suggests there is an Intelligent Designer.

 

[BradB]

Another name for God is "The Judges". In order to Judge, one MUST have the highest intelligence in Creation. Lord God is saying that man/Adam has become like one of the Trinity. Those who have inherited Adam's superior intelligence over ANY other living creature have also received the Free Choice to believe God or Not. Adam's/mankind's destiny is to have dominion or rule over EVERY living creature including Angels. That is WHY we have the highest intelligence in Creation.

Okay so I am with you up to this point. I would point out that we may have some attributes of God's intelligence...we by no means posses God's intelligence. For the foolishness of God is greater than all of man's wisdom. (1 Corinthians 1:25)

False, since prehistoric people were on planet Earth for Millions of years BEFORE the Ark arrived bringing the first Humans (descendants of Adam) to this Earth. Their bones are found for Millions of years before the Ark arrived 11k years ago.

Okay now you lost me. The Bible doesn't mention any "prehistoric" people nor is there any real evidence to suggest such. History of humanity started with Adam and there were no sub-humans prior. The strata in which bones of humans are found can easily be shown to have been laid down within one global catastrophe rather than "millions" of years of time.

You throw out a lot of other misinformation but we can address that later. Lets get past this point first please.

 

[BradB]

Infinite in Psalm 147:5 "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit." This is actually a negative meaning God has no limit, no restrictions. Otherwise we are looking at all of the ages. God knows the end from the beginning. You have to have an end before you can have a beginning and every beginning has an end. Infinity is a Greek term and in the Bible it means all of the ages. But there is still a beginning and an end to time. So infinity for God means he is outside of time and has none of the restrictions of time that the universe has.

Gerold Schroeder talks about when time grabbed a hold of the universe.

So then you are agreeing with me that God is infinite?

 

[Jimmy D]

It only points out that the evidence suggests there is an Intelligent Designer.

Except that it's failed miserably to do so, you forgot to mention that.

 

[BradB]

If so, then logic dictates that THAT something has to have something external to IT. No?

Do you understand the definition of "infinite?" If it is something or someone that is infinite then it/He requires no beginning.

By this I presume you are hinting at Dembski's CSI?

No I consider Dembski's CSI to be flat wrong. He throws complexity in there which is a big problem. I can drop a hand full of pennies on the floor and we know some will randomly land heads and some will randomly land tails and the odds of doing it again in the exact same order in the exact same way are astronomically high...and yet I got it that way the first try. One could look at that and call it complex. We can look at the pattern of any snow flake and call it complex because it is a very beautiful pattern and no two are alike. And we know that the pattern of a snow flake was formed by random unguided processes and basic laws of physics. I think Dembski throws the word "information" in just to make it all sound more "sciencey." However he could have saved himself a whole lot of trouble if he took the time to really understand what specificity is. Specificity by definition is anything that an observer can see was formed for a specific use or purpose. If we compare the pattern of a snow flake to the one in a car key we find the snow flake wins in complexity hands down. However the pattern of a snow flake doesn't do anything specific. It serves no intended purpose. The car key on the other hand aligns the pins in my cars starter lock to unlock it and allows me to start my car. That my friend is specificity. And it has only been observed originating from intelligent sources...period.

So much so that other sciences use specificity all the time for detecting intelligence. Archaeologists use it to identify actual artifacts at a dig site from naturally occurring objects. Marine biologists use it to identify specific sound patterns made by dolphins and have concluded that they actually have a sophisticated language. Even SETI uses it to look for specific radio or light bursts coming from deep space which they say would indicate an intelligent source.

 

[pitabread]

It serves no intended purpose. The car key on the other hand aligns the pins in my cars starter lock to unlock it and allows me to start my car. That my friend is specificity.

Remember when I raised the point (much) earlier about 'keys' that are designed to not actually open any locks? You can't necessarily use functional appearance to determine human design and manufacture.

 

[BradB]

Except that it's failed miserably to do so, you forgot to mention that.

Of course I strongly disagree.

 

[BradB]

Remember when I raised the point (much) earlier about 'keys' that are designed to not actually open any locks? You can't necessarily use functional appearance to determine human design and manufacture.

I'm sorry if you raised such a point. I seem to have missed it. Can you please give me the quick version again?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How do I know, you won't provide the context, which is all important as we've seen by the way Darwin's quote about the evolution of the eye has been abused by shady creationists.

I do find it strange though as Grasse accepted evolution.

Unfortunately the context reinforces the quote. I can't post links on my phone, but there are several places in the book where he questions the role of mutations in evolution. But as a neo-Lamarkian that's to be expected.

 

[tas8831]

I go by NASA, when they screw up people die. If you need surgery who do you go to?

A surgeon.


So when one has questions on evolutionary biology, for example, should they go to a theologian?

 

[tas8831]

Do you understand the definition of "infinite?" If it is something or someone that is infinite then it/He requires no beginning.

And that is just ad hoc, special pleading.

You merely assert that the 'next step up' is infinite.

I assert otherwise.

I win.

No I consider Dembski's CSI to be flat wrong.

Good man.

Specificity by definition is anything that an observer can see was formed for a specific use or purpose.

The first definition I saw was "the quality of belonging or relating uniquely to a particular subject."

If we compare the pattern of a snow flake to the one in a car key we find the snow flake wins in complexity hands down. However the pattern of a snow flake doesn't do anything specific. It serves no intended purpose. The car key on the other hand aligns the pins in my cars starter lock to unlock it and allows me to start my car. That my friend is specificity. And it has only been observed originating from intelligent sources...period.

I agree that car keys have an intelligent source - humans.

Are you saying that the Ultimate Designer was a human?

So much so that other sciences use specificity all the time for detecting intelligence.

Human intelligence, yes.

Archaeologists use it to identify actual artifacts at a dig site from naturally occurring objects.

Yes, because they know what to look for in terms of markings and such - made by humans.

Marine biologists use it to identify specific sound patterns made by dolphins and have concluded that they actually have a sophisticated language.

So the designer was a dolphin?

Even SETI uses it to look for specific radio or light bursts coming from deep space which they say would indicate an intelligent source.

Ok, great - but what does that have to do with the chaotic nature of genetics and evolution?

 

[tas8831]

Go ahead, this will be entertaining.

And he never did....


Got to be so time consuming being the sort of creationist that relies on plagiarism - you have to search obscure creationist essays, hoping not too many people have read them, finding passages to copy-paste and present as your own...

 

[tas8831]

The only 'assumptions' are those that even creationists admit are true - mutations happen; some mutations are heritable; patterns of shared inherited mutations are indicative of parent-offspring/ancestor-descendant relationships.


rs had blown it all off claiming 'yes mutations happen... blah blah blah', totally missing the implication.

The implication is that since these methods can reproduce known relationships, then using these methods on unknown relationships and accepting the conclusions is warranted.

Yes it is very easy. None of that research resulted in a change of the species.

Clearly just a troll, and not worth wasting time on.

Bye.

 

[Jimmy D]

Unfortunately the context reinforces the quote. I can't post links on my phone, but there are several places in the book where he questions the role of mutations in evolution. But as a neo-Lamarkian that's to be expected.

Thanks Bungle.

 

[tas8831]

So then we should consider footnotes to be a mandatory part of posting? Is there a difference between implied plagiarism and blatant plagiarism? Every reference to any source should be documented in posts?

If you are going to COPY and PASTE paragraphs and present them on your own, that is DISHONEST and, to me, indicates that the copy-paster lacks sufficient knowledge to make their own case.

Maybe you are OK with dishonesty used to cover ignorance, but most people are not.

Is it really that hard to post a link? To use quotation marks? To write "I got this from X"???

Really?

 

[Jimmy D]

Most of the discoveries made by science in the last 50 years refute evolution. Fundie evolutionist try to use similar DNA to support common descent. However DNA separates species, not links them.

I'm still waiting to find out what these discoveries from the last fifty years that refute evolution are.

If you make a statement like this you are expected to provide examples to back it up otherwise you are just trolling.

Please be specific.

DNA will show you and I are not biologically related, but that we are the same species. It will also show we are not related to apes.

How does it show that we are not related to "apes", please be specific.

 

[tas8831]

I would seriously lighten the standards of 'Plagiarism' inside of a forum.

I wouldn't, especially when the plagiarism is used try to "win" an argument, and the plagiarist clearly does not understand the material enough to understand it, much less discuss it.

It is dishonest, regardless of where it is done.

Should we seriously be footnoting our posts now? Our posts already get too long too quick. @Uber Genius isn't writing any articles here. I actually at one point started making side comments in my posts if I was getting a point out of this book or that book, but then I kept getting the feeling that nobody else was doing it. If someone has worded an argument perfectly, and you feel like you couldn't say it any better, and your in a forum where replies are coming in fast, I don't see the problem.

...
Some posters in here are cut & paste maniacs, if what they are cutting & pasting makes sense I don't care who's brainchild it is. Give me the best technical points in this forum please, I don't need originality points.

And these cut and pasters - can they DISCUSS what they cut and paste?

Or do they just do it because they 'trust' or 'believe' the source?

If so, then their cut and pastes are not only dishonest, but logically fallacious.

I have, on far too many occasions, gotten into discussions with creationists, making bombastic assertions, and when asked to back them up, copy-paste the rants of one of their YEC heroes AS their argument. when asked to explain the copy-paste, they've got nothing.

These are DISCUSSION forums, are they not?

Ok now this would be different, I'm with you here. If you don't even grasp a concept but you start posting it or you start reciting it to someone because it just 'Sounds Smart' and you think it's from some smart guy, then yes that is lame. But if you grasp it, and we're just in a forum, and it builds on your point, I would call it 'Referencing' not plagiarizing...fire away if it helps your argument.

"Referencing" is providing the source!

How about just NOT plagiarize? How about just not commenting if you cannot understand what is being discussed?

How about growing some humility?