Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Let me know when you say something of value and I shall respond.Definition. General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
1)How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?
2) And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs)? That being, for each and every sexually reproducing creature? It presupposes sexual reproduction came from asexual reproduction. They developed the complementary organs at the same time for all creatures via physics and chemistry alone?
3) ‘’Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Dawkins.
If living things look designed and for a purpose, how do they know they were not designed and for a purpose?
‘’The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology. "In the Mind of the Beholder" Natural History February 1994 p.14
Life from nonlife is not empirically verifiable. Neither is common ancestor. Neither is sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction. You are entitled to your opinions, not your facts.
National Socialism is applied Biology. Rudolf Hess.
Quote
Evolution is driven by competition, and competition brings extinction. Darwin notes, matter-of-factly in the Descent, that one tribe extinguishing another is the very engine of human evolution. In his words, “extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments.
National Socialism is applied Darwinism.
Yeah, I thought so. You did write something about evidence and i would like to know your empirical evidence for assuming male-female sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction via blind nongoal directed processes? It is a valid question you should be able to explain in laymen's terms. The step by step blind process which enabled compatible body parts at the same rate for a wide variety of sexually reproducing creatures.Let me know when you say something of value and I shall respond.
If you can disprove what I believe, then it is crap. Until you do, saying what I believe is crap, is the crap.
My explanation of the diversity of life is explained in Gen 1:20-27. "After their kind" is seen and repeated thousands of times every day and can't be falsified. No one has ever seen a species become a different species. Until you can provide the verifiable, scientific evidence that makes it possible, the TOE is crap.
You have no explanation for the origin of life let alone for the diversity of life. You do not know what the first life form was and what it evolved into. The TOE starts with an unexplainable guess and has continued guessing for 100+ years.
I am not a literalist. All of the Bible is not literal, but it is all true unless you can prove, scientifically of course, it is not.
The Bible says there was a global flood. It does not say the earth is flat. Those who say the Bible says that and that Christians believe it, are Biblically ignorant and ignorant of Christianity.
Just a thought: not all aspects of science can be explained "in layman's terms" and you shouldn't expect it.Yeah, I thought so. You did write something about evidence and i would like to know your empirical evidence for assuming male-female sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction via blind nongoal directed processes? It is a valid question you should be able to explain in laymen's terms. The step by step blind process which enabled compatible body parts at the same rate for a wide variety of sexually reproducing creatures.
We can never know if something is not designed. It's a question of whether we can show that it is designed.Also if something looks designed and for a purpose then how do you know it is not designed and for a purpose? Like the human brain. Why do you assume the human brain is the product of only non-goal directed processes? How do you know it was not designed and for a purpose by an intelligent agent?
I’d appreciate it if you could act a bit more politely, it was a straightforward question.
Why on Earth do you think science has to “prove the bible false” though? Scientific endeavour is more concerned with improving our quality of life and our understanding of the natural world. Why would scientists waste time trying to convince people like you that you’re interpretation of an ancient collection of writings is amiss?
Please don't be silly. It doesn't become you.Yeah, I thought so. You did write something about evidence and i would like to know your empirical evidence for assuming male-female sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction via blind nongoal directed processes? It is a valid question you should be able to explain in laymen's terms.
You did print you have offered to present evidence in your #286 and i decided to take you up on it with a few specific questions.Why would you expect me to be able to explain a specific detail from within the very large field of evolution when it is one that has held very limited (and I mean very) interest for me.
None that really answers anything specific to the question and naturalistic assumptions which exclude intelligent intervention as a matter of atheistic convictions. I would really like to know how and why you believe the human brain is solely the product of nongoal directed nonintelligent processes?I am sure you have access to a good library where you will be able to find a wealth of information on the topic.
Right. You have no interest in sex. You would rather not think about the actual step by step nongoal-directed process and all the complication involved. No answers to valid questions from you.I have no intention of running around and doing your research for you in regard to a topic that ranks low on my list of items about which to educate myself.
If you have empirical evidence for gravity then the significant assumption would be if someone jumps off a building they will fall to the ground. So am not sure what point you are making here.Just as a side note - if one has empirical evidence then no significant assumptions woul normally be expected to arise from that evidence.
Well, i will give your unsolicited assessment all the attention it deserves. Do you really think I come on here for assessments from you? If you have a problem then you really have not explained where you believe i am in error. Empirical evidence references a specific type. Like blue represents a specific type of color. So, again, not sure what your problem is here. No need to explain because i am losing interest. It sounds like nitpicking and deflection as counterfeits to rational arguments. What i am taking away is your unwillingness which is par for course for the evo apologists.And a further note - I don't think I've used the adjective empircal to modify "evidence" anywhere in this thread. (I stand ready to be corrected.) I don't think I have used it anywhere on this forum, since it's a bit oxymoronic. It does call into question what you understand the words "emprical", "evidence" and "assumption" to mean.
Congratulations! You have just stated an important principle of the theory of evolution *and* pointed out an area where the Bible and science agree.
Have you never hear of the principle of reproductive similarity? This important tenet of the theory of evolution states that no offspring will ever differ by more than a small amount from its parent(s).And where science and evolution do not agree.
Here are their 3 main offerings: natural selection(which they can't prove), mutations, which they don't understand, and small changes over many years, which they can't demonstrate and time does not change proven genetic truths
1. What does can't "prove" mean in the context of natural selection?
2. Mutations are understood very well and have been for decades.Wonderful. Tell me how they are a mechanism for a change of species. If you want to use the usual "many small changes over many years." include how time can change proven genetics truths.
. And to what "proven" genetic "truths" do you refer?
The offspring can only receive characteristics in the gene pool of its parents. If the parents do not have bones, they can never have a kid with bones.
Did the unprovable guess of what the first life form was have bones?
Have you never hear of the principle of reproductive similarity? This important tenet of the theory of evolution states that no offspring will ever differ by more than a small amount from its parent(s).
Have you heard of DNA? Ta-dah. There's all the evidence you could ever wish for.What I have heard or not heard of is irrelevant. Present the evidence that shows these small changes can cause an A to become a B.
The offer had two specific, implicit, characteristics:You did print you have offered to present evidence in your #286 and i decided to take you up on it with a few specific questions.
None that really answers anything specific to the question and naturalistic assumptions which exclude intelligent intervention as a matter of atheistic convictions. I would really like to know how and why you believe the human brain is solely the product of nongoal directed nonintelligent processes?
"Rather not think about"? You seem to be attempting mind reading. I'll repeat, in the vast, many faceted subject of evolution, the origin of sex just doesn't capture my attention. What I have read provides sufficiently plausible explanations that devoting time to forming a strong view, one way or another, on competing explanations just isn't worth it.Right. You have no interest in sex. You would rather not think about the actual step by step nongoal-directed process and all the complication involved. No answers to valid questions from you.
Can you explain how, in your mind, empirical evidence differs from just evidence. (Does the problem lie with Kant. I can't be sure.)If you have empirical evidence for gravity then the significant assumption would be if someone jumps off a building they will fall to the ground. So am not sure what point you are making here.
I am certain you did not. However given the number of unsolicited assessment in your own posts it is rather precious of you to complain when someone reciprocates. (For the record, I welcome any and all assessments from your. They provide valuable insight.)Well, i will give your unsolicited assessment all the attention it deserves. Do you really think I come on here for assessments from you?
Your flawed belief that their is not a wealth of empirical evidence for evolution. You have made an a priori decision to mischaracterise all such evidence as flawed, lies, assumptions, etc. It's very difficult for me not to be dismissive of such a position.If you have a problem then you really have not explained where you believe i am in error.
The problem is, that's not what empirical means.Empirical evidence references a specific type. Like blue represents a specific type of color. So, again, not sure what your problem is here.
While I take away an unwillingness to honestly consider valid evidence.What i am taking away is your unwillingness which is par for course for the evo apologists.
Do you mean speciation? Speciation has been observed.What I have heard or not heard of is irrelevant. Present the evidence that shows these small changes can cause an A to become a B.
Would it be unkind to suggest he is not talking about changes of species, but changes of kind, where "kind" is defined as "any like group of organisms that have not demonstrably undergone speciation"?Do you mean speciation? Speciation has been observed.
I think you are being generous to suggest that there is such a specific definition. In my experience, "kind" means whatever it needs to be at the moment, to defeat any particular evolutionist argument, the meaning being subject to change as necessary to defeat any different arguments.Would it be unkind to suggest he is not talking about changes of species, but changes of kind, where "kind" is defined as "any like group of organisms that have not demonstrably undergone speciation"?
Sorry, my scathing attack on anti-evolutionary rhetoric was too subtle. The moment an instance of speciation that produces different kinds occurs it resets the definition of kinds. It is a foolproof way of ever having to accept a speciation event as being significant, since - by this definition - speciation only occurs within kinds, it never generates new ones. Thanks for providing the opportunity for me to clarify my meaning.I think you are being generous to suggest that there is such a specific definition. In my experience, "kind" means whatever it needs to be at the moment, to defeat any particular evolutionist argument, the meaning being subject to change as necessary to defeat any different arguments.
Get a good dictionary and look up "prove." If you don't know what "can't means. look it up also.
Wonderful. Tell me how they are a mechanism for a change of species. If you want to use the usual "many small changes over many years." include how time can change proven genetics truths.
The offspring can only receive characteristics in the gene pool of its parents. If the parents do not have bones, they can never have a kid with bones.
Did the unprovable guess of what the first life form was have bones?
I guess I need to rephrase my question in order to actually get an answer. Leaving aside for a moment that science doesn't prove anything and there's no such thing as scientific proof, what problem, specifically, do you have with natural selection?
Do you disagree with the fact that the environment can have an effect on which populations are reproductively successful?
1. Every offspring is born with dozens to hundreds of alleles that neither parent had.
2. Some genes simply change over time. Some genes (or chromsomes or genomes) duplicate providing raw genetic material for mutations.
3. Some examples of the the latter are whole genome duplication in a stem vertebrate population that gave rise to the different globin genes in modern vertebrates and SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B which caused the human brain to have more connections and become more dense.
1. No offspring will ever be so different from it's parent that it would be unable to reproduce with the rest of the population.
2. As I mentioned above, every offspring are born with dozens to hundreds of mutations not present in the genome of either parent. Nearly all of them are in non-coding DNA, but some will code for characteristics and can cause small changes.
3. The evolution of vertebrate skeletal systems was not a case of no bones > 1 generation > bones. First a notochord evolved, then a true backbone, then cartilagenous bones (or armored bones of placoderms), then stiff bones.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?