Where did the laws of nature come from?

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,574
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you'll remember, this isn't a discussion of your opinions but about a question of fact - did you or didn't you claim that I had acknowledged something :
Yes I did say you acknowledged selections inability to evolve complexity in life because that is what you said even though you denied it. So it was a debate that went back and forth about who said what and sometimes this is because people have opinion on what they said and meant and its hard to prove. So as far as I was concerned you did acknowledge this for which I posted the evidence. So there were two conflicting replies for which I concluded that you were chopping and changing and hence my statements. If a person forms a view after taking a different position earlier that is not a contradiction but a different position form what they had earlier. So people can contradict themselves and you did the same during this debate but I haven't made an issue out of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You have made another false accusation. nothing in that original post said that my faith blinds me from seeing the evidence and therefore causing me to deny any facts. I was explaining my faith and how the evidence is based on observation and therefore can be seen more than one way. That both sides can be biased. In fact I was actually supporting the opposite of basing things on faith and personal bias by stating that it is important to use proper scientific testing to verify things.

Stevevw said

If there is any bias going on then it happens on all sides because much of the debate is based on observation and personal interpretations. Evolution is based on a lot of these assumptions ans speculations. Thats why its important to look at the evidence such as genomics as well because this can verify or cast doubt on what has been said.

I then replied to that original post when you first made that false claim with the following which is exactly the same reply I just gave. This shows I was making myself clear that I wasn't admitting to anything like you have falsely claimed.

Jul 31, 2016 #1498
stevevw said
That doesn't mean anything. With that sort of logic then every scientists who speaks the same way about their personal experiences is also only believing because of their belief. That includes some of the greatest scientists who have discovered some of the best theories in science, ie Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck and Gregor Mendel who was prominent in the field of evolution with genetics. The rest of the scientists mainly worked in the field of physics which is probably the best field to dispute religious faith as it deals with the material world. But all the scientists will base they work on falsification yet they still believed in a supernatural creator God. So your argument is based on a false conclusion and an illogical fallacy.

where did you see me denying science, can you supply any support for this yet again false accusation. All people accept science but will disagree with it to varying degrees depending what the topic is. I mean science is a way of looking and explaining things and those who believe in God may say that science is just explaining Gods creation. All Christians believe God is the creator whether it is through theist evolution or creation which is totally unscientific. So at the end of the day though some Christians believe in theist evolution they still believe it cannot happen without Gods intervention and that's an important distinction.

Tl, dr.

Dude, learn to post shorter.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes I did say you acknowledged selections inability to evolve complexity in life because that is what you said

The last time I asked you to quote me saying it, you weren't able to do it. One of the many excuses you used when confronted with this fact was this :

I didn't say you acknowledge that natural selection was insufficient for the origin of complex organisms.

No you're back to pretending I wrote it? That kind of approach isn't doing much to make me take your claims seriously.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,574
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Tl, dr.

Dude, learn to post shorter.
I had to link the original post that shows exactly what I said otherwise I had visions of you saying I was making up stuff again. Its just to cover my -. What does Tl and dr mean.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,574
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The last time I asked you to quote me saying it, you weren't able to do it. One of the many excuses you used when confronted with this fact was this :

No you're back to pretending I wrote it? That kind of approach isn't doing much to make me take your claims seriously.
No I have posted it several times in the past but didn't bother any more as you either ignored or denied it . When I posted the quotes of me saying selection had inability to evolve complex organisms you responded.
Jul 22, 2016 #1407
KCfromNC said "this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity.

That is an acknowledgement of selection having inability to evolve the networks that build complex in life and that's exactly what I stated I was talking about several times.

Then there was this where I asked
Aug 9, 2016 #1588
stevevw said
So your admitting that the paper is saying complexity and transcription networks may not be the result of natural selection.
And you answered
KCfromNC said
Am I?

But you did acknowledged this
KCfromNC said
This means that complexity may not be the result of selection.
KCfromNC said
This means that transcriptional networks may not be the result of selection.

You admitted it here as well
Stevevw said
I mean the whole paper is about questioning natural selections ability
KCfromNC said
Except for the part talking about how selection is one of the fundamental forces driving evolution. Don't forget that part.

But then you changed your mind again
Oct 4, 2016 #1867
stevevw said:
So you believe that the paper is only questioning natural selections ability for origin of complex life.
KCfromNC said
Nope

Then you asked for evidence again and I posted the same acknowledgements you had made before, and so the debate kept going back and forth.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ature-come-from.7928975/page-71#post-69905402
Jul 22, 2016 #1407
KCfromNC
said "this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity.

So we can all make quotes that seem to contradict what we say.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No I have posted it several times in the past

I don't think you're telling the truth here. But feel free to prove me wrong. Find a quote of me saying I "acknowledged selections inability to evolve complexity in life". That you need paragraphs of half-sentences pulled out of context to hide from the fact you can't do so tells me all I need to know.

As I mentioned, this desire to quote-mine when you run across facts which go against what you really hope is real is a bad habit. It makes it very difficult to take what you write seriously at all.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,574
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't think you're telling the truth here. But feel free to prove me wrong. Find a quote of me saying I "acknowledged selections inability to evolve complexity in life". That you need paragraphs of half-sentences pulled out of context to hide from the fact you can't do so tells me all I need to know.

As I mentioned, this desire to quote-mine when you run across facts which go against what you really hope is real is a bad habit. It makes it very difficult to take what you write seriously at all.
I just did, that's unless you are asking for exact word for word quotes which is ridiculous. People acknowledge things in different ways which amount to the same thing. This is a common form of referencing in academic writing. By you trying to correct me when I was saying selection is negligible, insufficient and has an inability to evolve complex life by saying this only applies to complex situations is acknowledging that selection has inability, insufficiency and is negligible for complexity in life. You said it a number of times in different ways which all amount to the same thing.

So when I was saying that at least you were a step closer to acknowledging that there are questions about natural selections ability (inability) my emphasis as that is what I kept emphasizing you stated,
Sep 27, 2016 #1828
KCfromNC said
In specific categories of evolution. Yes, that's why I said so when you first posted this quote a while back.

As you said you had already acknowledged that the specific categories were about complexity in life for which I had posted many times. So here you are restating that you have already acknowledged this.

As I stated earlier I thought we would/should have moved on from this you said, he said stuff as the last 10 plus pages have been about silly minor points rather than the debate. (unfortunately I have had to defend myself in this time rather then debate the topic).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I just did, that's unless you are asking for exact word for word quotes which is ridiculous.

I don't see any other posters have issues with it.


Granted it does get in the way of trying to mislead people by pulling random things out of context and pretending they're talking about something else, as you're doing here :

But At least now you are a step closer to acknowledging that they are at least maybe questioning the ability and role of natural selection.

In specific categories of evolution. Yes, that's why I said so when you first posted this quote a while back.

Just another example of me stating I understood what the paper was talking about. And an example of you trying to pretend that I'm saying something different by pulling such a quote out of context. Do you really think that this sort of behavior is going to convince people your posts are trustworthy?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,574
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't see any other posters have issues with it.


Granted it does get in the way of trying to mislead people by pulling random things out of context and pretending they're talking about something else, as you're doing here :
They are not random posts, they come from the same conversations we have been having where you are getting your posts from that you want to give me a hard time about. Funny I said exactly the same thing when you posted my replies, seems when the shoes on the other foot, we all do the same. So its not a big issue like I said , but you want to make it so.

Just another example of me stating I understood what the paper was talking about. And an example of you trying to pretend that I'm saying something different by pulling such a quote out of context. Do you really think that this sort of behavior is going to convince people your posts are trustworthy?
I don't know' you tell me as I am only doing exactly what you were saying. I also said you were pulling my words out of context, it seems one rule applies to some and not others. I could use your own standards here and say where is the word paper in that quote you made. You asked for a quote stating that you acknowledged that selection had inability for complexity in life and that is exactly what I have supplied. No one said anything about qualifying anything with whether you believe in what you say or not. Either you said it or you didn't say it.

Anyway as far as I understood it you and others were going to great lengths to explain how these non adaptive forces of evolution are not what I thought they were and how they were only talking about complexity. You claimed you knew better and talked like this is what actually happens in evolution and that's why I was wrong. How can you take that position and use that to disprove what I was saying if you don't really believe it happens. You also stated to me that if I don't believe the paper then why should I use it. So shouldn't the same apply to you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I also said you were pulling my words out of context

The problem here is that you say lots of things. And for many of them, like this claim here, you can't seem to provide facts to back them up. I have sympathy - that's a tough place to end up in - but you have only yourself to blame.

I could use your own standards here and say where is the word paper in that quote you made.

Have I ever done something this lame? Sounds like another fabrication to me.

But anyway, you quoted me using that exact word in your post I linked to above. Seems weird you'd have to ask me about stuff you've included in your own posts.

Interesting, though, how I have no problem answering the sort of questions that seem to so easily trip you up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,574
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The problem here is that you say lots of things. And for many of them, like this claim here, you can't seem to provide facts to back them up. I have sympathy - that's a tough place to end up in - but you have only yourself to blame.
Fair enough. If anything I think I have provided support for most things I have said. That,s all I can do and if you don't want to accept that and dismiss it then I can't do much more about that.

Have I ever done something this lame? Sounds like another fabrication to me.
well yes, several times when I made a claim or when I supplied support for something you asked where were the exact words that would match what I was saying from the paper or other sources . You insisted it had to show the exact words and you didn't allow any other adjectives that meant the same things which is only a reasonable thing to do.

Every time you claimed I was making stuff up I have provided support for what i have said, just like the last post. But even when I do show you, you end up dismissing it anyway as you have just done so I am beginning to not waste my time going back and searching all the time for the support.

But anyway, you quoted me using that exact word in your post I linked to above. Seems weird you'd have to ask me about stuff you've included in your own posts.

Interesting, though, how I have no problem answering the sort of questions that seem to so easily trip you up.
Yes you have acknowledged this with and without the word. Either way according to your own logic you are supporting what the paper says by using it to show I am wrong just like I am doing for you. You have to be prepared to be measured by the same standards you want to make others adhere to. But enough of this its been dragging on and taken this debate way off track.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That,s all I can d and if you don't want to accept that and dismiss it

Pointing out specifically how it is untrue isn't dismissing it.

You insisted it had to show the exact words and you didn't allow any adjectives that meant the same things

At some point, after never being able to substantiate them, these sorts of claims lose any hint of being effective distractions.

You have to be prepared to be measured by the same standards you want to make others adhere to.

Did you miss the examples in the posts above where I had no problems doing so? You seem to think that this issue you have with being able to find facts to back up your assertions is a problem most people have. I can assure you that isn't the case.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough. If anything I think I have provided support for most things I have said. That,s all I can do and if you don't want to accept that and dismiss it then I can't do much more about that.


-snip-.

No, you havent, and when you are corrected on this and when people show you that you misquote/misunderstand/lie you only double down.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,574
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,874.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, you haven't, and when you are corrected on this and when people show you that you misquote/misunderstand/lie you only double down.
Four weeks of silence and now you want to keep things going. Are you getting bored and need some excitement. I think this issue is dead and buried now. If you want to keep flogging it that's up to you. That reply was to a petty off topic conversation about semantics and words said or not said and the support for them between myself an KCfromNC. So I can't see how it had anything to do with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
I was talking about selection. The point is natural selection selects, it doesn't create. If you want to talk about mutations well they are primarily an error to what is already working. But dont forget epigentics as well.
Not right, stevevw. This is natural selection
Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", and compared it with artificial selection.
Natural selection creates, e.g. new species. Selection obviously selects :D!
Looks like I was wrong:
21 June 2016 stevevw: Now you do not need to ignorantly repeat the "most mutations are harmful" myth.

P.S. Found an older post of mine which reminded me:
Did you ever answer 30 June 2016 stevevw: Do humans and chimps have a common ancestor?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
First even supporters of evolution can't agree on what is a species.
23 June 2016 stevevw: The different definitions of species are not evidence of limits to evolution.
Similarly:
19 January 2017 stevevw: The different definitions of species are not evidence of the observations and theory of evolution being dubious or wrong.

Second last time I looked different species of finches, bats or any creature are all still the same creatures that have the same features and shape.
A bad statement because the usual criteria for species includes populations do not interbreed and physical differences.

Looks like you still need to learn about macroevolution, e.g.
23 June 2016 stevevw: Please read and acknowledge the scientific evidence that makes the idea that microevolution does not lead to macroevolution very ignorant.

... They are all still the same creatures.
Who cares about "creatures" - they are different species :doh:!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0