Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[AV1611VET]

No, no, your post doesn't contradict his. AV is simply asking why he posts only here when there is an entire other area of the forum dedicated exclusively to YEC theology. And he did say he was here to better understand and debate YEC reasoning.

I was just asking ... not to be snide or anything ... but because I really don't see too many YECs responding to his threads.

If he meant what he said, I would think he would be right at home "up there".

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

I was just asking ... not to be snide or anything ... but because I really don't see too many YECs responding to his threads.

If he meant what he said, I would think he would be right at home "up there".

Not sure if sarcasm or veiled death threat...

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure if sarcasm or veiled death threat...

LOL ... neither.

I meant "way up there on the 5th floor" (Theology).

We're on the "2nd floor" (Society).

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

LOL ... neither.

I meant "way up there on the 5th floor" (Theology).

We're on the "2nd floor" (Society).

Ahhhh...I thought you meant heaven...as in dead.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahhhh...I thought you meant heaven...as in dead.

Um ... no.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Um ... no.

Okay, okay. I acknowledge that you're not a serial killer.

Edit: Probably not, anyway

 

[KWCrazy]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy

However, it's a moot point since it's biologically AND CHEMICALLY impossible for amino acids to form protiens even under the most perfectly controlled circumstances;
​

[/color]

Then how can your cells do it if it is impossible?

I was referring in in nature, not inside the human body. Left me illustrate.

...oxygen was evidently present on the early earth -- but the presence of oxygen prohibits the development of organic compounds...

...A further major difficulty is that such experiments cannot produce the right kinds of amino acids. Amino acid conformations exist as mirror-isomers. In other words, there are left-handed (L-form) amino acids, as well as right-handed (D-form) amino acids. The amino acids that comprise living proteins are of the left-handed form, yet in simulations such as Miller’s, an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are produced. All known natural mechanisms by which amino acids are produced, produce amino acids in roughly the same proportion of right- and left-handed forms. But let us suppose that some naturalistic mechanism were discovered which could indeed segregate the left-handed forms needed for life. It would still remain inexplicable how the L-form amino acids became correctly ordered with the proper links (peptide bonds) to form proteins. The odds would still be stacked highly against obtaining even a single protein from a primordial soup made up of exclusively L-form amino acids."

This of course validates what I stated about abiogenesis being impossible.

....To form a living cell requires hundreds of specialized proteins that need to be precisely coordinated. We would also need to produce DNA, RNA, a cell membrane, and a host of other chemical compounds -- not to mention arranging them into their correct locations to perform their respective functions.

Abiogenesis – Conclusion
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: "It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle."

One source of many

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, okay. I acknowledge that you're not a serial killer.

Edit: Probably not, anyway

Serial Killer Rodney James Alcala on the Dating Game - YouTube

 

[46AND2]

Serial Killer Rodney James Alcala on the Dating Game - YouTube

Well, Alcala's age, according to Wikipedia is about ten years older than what you have listed in this forum, but can't really trust Wiki, anyway.

I wonder, though, how you are posting on the internet from death row?







That's a creepy video. Peel me, baby!

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy

However, it's a moot point since it's biologically AND CHEMICALLY impossible for amino acids to form protiens even under the most perfectly controlled circumstances;
​

I was referring in in nature, not inside the human body. Left me illustrate.

...oxygen was evidently present on the early earth -- but the presence of oxygen prohibits the development of organic compounds...

...A further major difficulty is that such experiments cannot produce the right kinds of amino acids. Amino acid conformations exist as mirror-isomers. In other words, there are left-handed (L-form) amino acids, as well as right-handed (D-form) amino acids. The amino acids that comprise living proteins are of the left-handed form, yet in simulations such as Miller’s, an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are produced. All known natural mechanisms by which amino acids are produced, produce amino acids in roughly the same proportion of right- and left-handed forms. But let us suppose that some naturalistic mechanism were discovered which could indeed segregate the left-handed forms needed for life. It would still remain inexplicable how the L-form amino acids became correctly ordered with the proper links (peptide bonds) to form proteins. The odds would still be stacked highly against obtaining even a single protein from a primordial soup made up of exclusively L-form amino acids."

This of course validates what I stated about abiogenesis being impossible.

....To form a living cell requires hundreds of specialized proteins that need to be precisely coordinated. We would also need to produce DNA, RNA, a cell membrane, and a host of other chemical compounds -- not to mention arranging them into their correct locations to perform their respective functions.

Abiogenesis – Conclusion
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: "It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle."

One source of many

So this is your reasoning:

1) The present state of Science has yet to explain how XYZ happens.

2) Therefore, XYZ must be impossible.

And how many times in the history of science has this silly "proof" been overturned when new evidence revealed the answers?

Sad. Just plain sad.

(Face-palm.)

[The above illustrates why both "creation science" and "intelligent design" are dying a slow but inevitable death. The Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy is too easily exposed.]

.

 

[KWCrazy]

So this is your reasoning:

1) The present state of Science has yet to explain how XYZ happens.

2) Therefore, XYZ must be impossible.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, any theory which defers to abiogenesis is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species. Therefore, any theory which defers to benevolent mutations is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the fossil record shows creatures that lived and died without ancestors or descendants. Therefore, any theory which uses the fossil record to show common ancestry is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the reproductive cycle slows as size increases. Observations show that after thousands of generations of irradiation, fruit flies are still fruit flies. Therefore, any theory which pretends dinosaurs evolved into anything else is scientifically invalid.


We could do this all day.

And how many times in the history of science has this silly "proof" been overturned when new evidence revealed the answers?

And yet after all this time evolutionists have yet to demonstrate even that evolution COULD happen; much less that it DID happen.

Sad. Just plain sad.

I know. It's sad how that validate your theory you rely on science that invalidates your theory.

[The above illustrates why both the fabricated lies of evolutionists are slowly unravelling. The Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy is too easily exposed.]

 

[46AND2]

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, any theory which defers to abiogenesis is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species. Therefore, any theory which defers to benevolent mutations is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the fossil record shows creatures that lived and died without ancestors or descendants. Therefore, any theory which uses the fossil record to show common ancestry is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the reproductive cycle slows as size increases. Observations show that after thousands of generations of irradiation, fruit flies are still fruit flies. Therefore, any theory which pretends dinosaurs evolved into anything else is scientifically invalid.


We could do this all day.

And yet after all this time evolutionists have yet to demonstrate even that evolution COULD happen; much less that it DID happen.

I know. It's sad how that validate your theory you rely on science that invalidates your theory.

[The above illustrates why both the fabricated lies of evolutionists are slowly unravelling. The Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy is too easily exposed.]

Wow.

There is nothing unraveling about evolution. Since the advent of DNA/genome sequencing, the theory has become so robust that we would know it was true even if we had never found a single fossil.

I'm continually flabbergasted by the level of cognitive dissonance necessary to argue against it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Since the advent of DNA/genome sequencing, the theory has become so robust that we would know it was true even if we had never found a single fossil.

In other words, your desire to believe in anything but God is so strong that you would believe it without evidence. How scientific.

 

[46AND2]

In other words, your desire to believe in anything but God is so strong that you would believe it without evidence. How scientific.

Wrong.

1. Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in God.

2. I would love to believe in a loving god; non-existence after death creeps the H out of me.

3. While the fossil evidence is strong, the DNA evidence is overwhelming. Therefore, I would accept evolution without FOSSIL evidence, as long as we still had the DNA evidence. If we had no evidence, I would not accept it; hence my faith icon.

 

[OllieFranz]

So this is your reasoning:

1) The present state of Science has yet to explain how XYZ happens.

2) Therefore, XYZ must be impossible.

And how many times in the history of science has this silly "proof" been overturned when new evidence revealed the answers?

Sad. Just plain sad.

(Face-palm.)

[The above illustrates why both "creation science" and "intelligent design" are dying a slow but inevitable death. The Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy is too easily exposed.]

.

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, any theory which defers to abiogenesis is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species. Therefore, any theory which defers to benevolent mutations is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the fossil record shows creatures that lived and died without ancestors or descendants. Therefore, any theory which uses the fossil record to show common ancestry is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the reproductive cycle slows as size increases. Observations show that after thousands of generations of irradiation, fruit flies are still fruit flies. Therefore, any theory which pretends dinosaurs evolved into anything else is scientifically invalid.


We could do this all day.

And yet after all this time evolutionists have yet to demonstrate even that evolution COULD happen; much less that it DID happen.

So he identifies the form that your argument took and points out that that very form is logically flawed (a fallacy) and nothing argued in that form can be established to be proven, even if both the premise and the conclusion should happen to be true, and your response is to make four more arguments using exactly the same flaw, as if by sheer number of fallacious assertions you could overwhelm he dictates of logic?

I know. It's sad how that validate your theory you rely on science that invalidates your theory.

And how, exactly, does pointing out that your argument is logically flawed equate to him validating his viewpoint? (Unless you assume that there are only two possible theories, so anything that weakens one strengthens the other -- which does not follow. There are not only two possible viewpoints, but even if there were, pointing out that the form of an argument is flawed just means it is not a good argument. It is still possible that a different argument might be made which is not flawed.)

And even if (he thought) it did validate his viewpoint, how can it at the same time invalidate it? Especially since nothing in your argument or in his analysis of it flaw says anything about the validity of his viewpoint.

Take a course in logic if you want to play with the big boys. Posts like this will only get you a place on the ignore lists.

 

[verysincere]

The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, any theory which defers to abiogenesis is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species. Therefore, any theory which defers to benevolent mutations is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the fossil record shows creatures that lived and died without ancestors or descendants. Therefore, any theory which uses the fossil record to show common ancestry is scientifically invalid.


The present KNOWLEDGE of science is that the reproductive cycle slows as size increases. Observations show that after thousands of generations of irradiation, fruit flies are still fruit flies. Therefore, any theory which pretends dinosaurs evolved into anything else is scientifically invalid.


We could do this all day.

No. You could lie all day, no doubt, but I cannot. (Your four lies above fool nobody except yourself.) So you are on your own now. Once someone has decided to lie about the facts, they aren't worth my effort. As a Christian, I have no respect for violations of the 9th Commandment.

 

[KWCrazy]

1. Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in God.

If you believe there is a God, then you think He's a liar. You believe that God lied when He told Moses how He created the world in six days. You believe He made up the forth commandment to support that lie. Further, you believe that Jesus was lying when He affirmed that the Torah was the inspired word of God; that God created the first man and union and ordained marriage; and that Noah was a real person who survived a floof that destroyed the rest of the world.

Interestingly, the god that you must believe in to support what you post cannot, by definition, be God.

2. I would love to believe in a loving god; non-existence after death creeps the H out of me.

If you would love to believe then you DON'T believe, which illustrates point number one.

3. While the fossil evidence is strong, the DNA evidence is overwhelming.

Personally, I find the evidence of God's creation to be far more compelling. Having long ago accepted Christ as my personal savior, God has revealed Himself to me in many other ways. To the unbeliever, God remains in secret. It's only through faith that God reveals himself to man.

Therefore, I would accept evolution without FOSSIL evidence, as long as we still had the DNA evidence. If we had no evidence, I would not accept it; hence my faith icon.

The fossil record shows me only that there were a lot of animals that died suddenly and were encased in sediment; a sure sign of a great flood. DNA evidence proves a common Creator. The evidence convinces you only of what you already believe. It can be interopreted either way, which is why there is still room for faith in a world of skeptics.

 

[KWCrazy]

And how, exactly, does pointing out that your argument is logically flawed equate to him validating his viewpoint?

Logically flawed? If you believe in abiogenesis you understand nothing about chemistry or biology. If you believe in magical mutations that have never been shown to advance a species, you know nothing about science. If you think that the fossil record shows anything other than dead animals without any transitional fossils, you know nothing about the fossil record. I find your post quite laughable. If you had any evidence whatever of th three things I mentioned you would have posted them, Instead you show the simpleness of your argument. It convinces nobody.

(Unless you assume that there are only two possible theories, so anything that weakens one strengthens the other -- which does not follow.

Actually, there are millions of theories. Every evolutionist seems to have his own, and all are quite convinced hey are right despite the lack of proof from either side.

There are not only two possible viewpoints, but even if there were, pointing out that the form of an argument is flawed just means it is not a good argument.

Which is exactly what your post just did. However, showing the contradictions in another's argument IS a good strategy. The arguments from science must be based only on science. There can be nothing supernatural like abiogenesis to help it along. The argument that there is a God but He lies about hoe He does things has no basis in either science or religion.

And even if (he thought) it did validate his viewpoint, how can it at the same time invalidate it?

If the facts of science contra-indicate your opinion, then you can't say that your opinion is scientifically sound.

Take a course in logic if you want to play with the big boys.

I've already taken a courses on logic. By what ignorance do you pretend to know my education? You know nothing about me, and yet you try to make this personal. Understand, in debate we attack the argument. Losers attack their opponents. I may say that your argument is completely off base or that what you post has no scientific validity, but I don't pretend to know your level of education or lack thereof. Neither do I assail your character or integrity. That seems to be the fallback position of every evolutionist I encounter.

Posts like this will only get you a place on the ignore lists.

Amen, brother, you're there now. Learn to debate without bebasing. Your tone is hostile and your arguments are thin. We will not converse any more in the future. Congratulations on being the first to volunteer for my ignore list. Have a wonderful day.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm continually flabbergasted by the level of cognitive dissonance necessary to argue against it.

What a low class thing to say. While I don't find your arguments particularly well presented, I've never disparaged your intellect for holding the positions you do. If you are incapable of intelligent debate, than we have nothing further to discuss. Debate is about presenting your side in a way that makes sense logically. Ad hominum attacks and flaming detract from your position.

Since you can't debate without debasement, and since I have no desire to get into a flaming competition, consider this our last conversation.

 

[sfs]

Logically flawed? If you believe in abiogenesis you understand nothing about chemistry or biology. If you believe in magical mutations that have never been shown to advance a species, you know nothing about science. If you think that the fossil record shows anything other than dead animals without any transitional fossils, you know nothing about the fossil record. I find your post quite laughable. If you had any evidence whatever of th three things I mentioned you would have posted them, Instead you show the simpleness of your argument. It convinces nobody.

Everything you've written here is false. Do you know any scientists? Have you read any scientific papers on abiogenesis or mutations or fossils or evolution?