|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Birds becoming mammals becoming fishes, with spouts on the tops of their heads, as with mamalian whales... Davidjay, you have already proven that you know nothing about evolution. There is no need for you to prove that you are a blithering idiot as well! Do you really seriously want to claim that that blithering nonsense is what evolution teaches? Please, please, please, please, please learn something! In the meantime, thank you very much for thoroughly discrediting your false religion and for contributing to the growth and spread of atheism. Of course, if that is not your intent, then you may want to think about what you are doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Davidjay, you have already proven that you know nothing about evolution. There is no need for you to prove that you are a blithering idiot as well! Too late. Actually, I think the guy is just trolling us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Nice pic of the receeding flood and how it gouged out the landscape, Actually the Grand Canyon, is a better example of the receeding flood You didn't address my archaeological evidence. Nor did you explain why "receeding floods" (sic) didn't cause such obvious geographical features in most other places. Nor did you address the age difference between the purported flood and the channeled scablands. There is also a substantial age difference between the channeled scablands of Washington and the Grand Canyon. In other words, you are ignoring huge amounts of evidence in favor of belief.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Someone HERE stated that there is mathematics associated with 'evolutionary' theory. Never heard anyone ever state that before. How have you managed to keep your ignorance so pristine for so long?
Evolution is purely a supposed chance situation where sufficient magical beneficial mutations take place to develop a supposed better species by luck and chance. No. Instead of making stuff up, why didn't you do any research? That way you wouldn't tell such blithering lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Never seen any fossil evidence personally ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As a scientist, I have an obligation to put forth mathematics that you evolutionists do NOT have, and evidence that you evolutionists do not have. Funny, your profile says that your occupation is "Christian missionary", which is about as far from "scientist" as you can get. Are you by any chance an enormous liar?
If evolutionists had proofs they would have put them forward years ago. They have no missing links, they have no transition species, they have nothing. Well, I guess that answers the liar question then. So, supplementary follow-up question. You're religious, don't you ever worry about burning in Hell while Satan spits the word "LIAR!" into your face forever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1050 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Someone HERE stated that there is mathematics associated with 'evolutionary' theory. Never heard anyone ever state that before. This one took me aback a little. I would not have been surprised if you wanted to claim that the maths of evolutionary theory is all wrong; but to claim you've never heard someone say there is a maths of evolutionary theory after over a decade of arguing about this stuff is a bit... odd. A lot of the basics of statistics were developed by evolutionary biologists. Probably the most important figure in the development of statistics is Ronald Fisher*; and the motivation behind a lot of the mathematical tools he developed was in making evolutionary theory more mathematically rigorous. JBS Haldane's A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection is public domain and available online, being almost a century old. It's not light reading, but it's pretty dense on maths, if that's what you're looking for. *my personal bias may be showing in this assessment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
In Message 41 I wrote:
DWise1 writes: Davidjay writes: ... We also have that infamous quotation from a Wistar Institute conference in the 1960's, to the effect that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. I cannot place my hand on it right at this moment, but I'm sure that you're familiar with it since it's so popular among creationists. Sir Peter Edawar was involved, as I recall. Theres no mathematics to evolution, ... I'm sure that you have read the creationist quote-mining of what he said, but have you gone to the original document and read what he actually said? It turns out that he was complaining about neo-Darwinism because it was almost purely mathematical! He was complaining that fitness was just a number, which told you nothing other than if something was more fit then it would survive, which he said was tantamount to a tautology. The part that creationist quote-miners leave out is that what he was really interested in was why and how an particular organism's particular traits made it more fit. His complaint was that the math of neo-Darwinism abstracted away all that really interesting information that he wanted to see. Which is very different from how the quote-mining creationists want you to interpret that. So then, "no mathematics to evolution"? Edawar complained that there was too much maths to evolution, that it was almost purely mathematics. So which is it? Frankly, I think that Sir Peter Edawar knew a helluva lot more than you do. And, OBTW, a tautology is always true. I found that reference in a response that I wrote on this forum in 2013. It turns out that it was Waddington who had been misquoted. Here is what I had written:
quote: Dr. Waddington's complaint about neo-Darwinism was that it was too heavily mathematical. The exact opposite of your vacuous claim. QED
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
caffeine writes:
Not if he gets all of his information from creationists.
... but to claim you've never heard someone say there is a maths of evolutionary theory after over a decade of arguing about this stuff is a bit... odd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Dwise, please reframe from calling me a blithering idiot. Scientists try to be objective rather subjective. Name calling does not win you converts in the debate, or any debate. If anything it shows you have lost the debate..... and your opponent has won.
Creationism has laws, and principles. Evolution is based on luck and chance, and its statistical so called law is that eventually a lucky combination will produce itself by accident if given enough time. It can be condensed into the religious saying of, all things are possible with evolution, just give it or her enough time. If not a billion years, wait a trillion years. Design always wins over lack of design, always. Intelligence always wins over lack of intelligence.Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Caffeine, do read between your lines, as a theory of a theory gets wilder and wilder..... and the reason your so called mathematician type tried to come up with something is that evolutionary doctrine is as vaque and inaccurate and inexact as inexactness gets. Its is not RIGOROUS or in any way mathematical.
I love exactness, not inexactness and inexact probabilities given definitive parameters that never stay the same. Evolutionary theory is filled with too many maybes, could have, might have, possibily this or maybe possibly that, could have been a million years, maybe billion years, maybe trillion years. I love math and science and laws, not inexactness from the desperateEvolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Coyote, if you want the true history of the Flood, just start a new thread, on it and I shall answer. You can post your billions and trillions of years, and I can post my immensely smaller exact numbers.
Not a problem, just go to Proposed New Topics.... Herein we must stay on TOPIC, and further confirm the Ten Laws, somebody gave..... they sound pretty good to me, even though I never heard of them before. So we have confirmation. If you deny one, do so logically and rationally. ThanksEvolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Dr Adequate
As I love consistency and endurance and truthfulness, Yes I am a Christian Missionary, and have remained one since my graduation from University with a BSC...... even though the not so nice evolutionary professors tried to fail me for not believing their dogma. We can talk about that forced indocrination, ona NEW THREAD. And Yes, of course as a true scientist, I had to test and try out and experiemnt whether the principles and laws of the Lord are applicable. Its not mere talk and bluster as with evolutionary imaginations in a dream world, but real life, follwoing the precepts. It was proven, and confirmed. The Lords laws of love and life work and are proveable and repeatable, and viable. If you want to be truthful or find out, just try them out yourself personally. Got to fly.. Thanks for the response, but lets get back to confirming the Ten Laws of Creationism, that someone found.Evolution is not science and is pure religion, forced upon the young to ensure their faith in luck and chance rather than mathematics and design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2120 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
As I love consistency and endurance and truthfulness, Then you are at the cross roads.Are going to be honest or are you going to be a creationist, for it is impossible to be both. Good news is, these forums are a great place to interact with knowledgeable people who can walk you through reason and rationality where you can actually understand things rather than simply to believe them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Davidjay writes: Never seen any fossil evidence personally, I have seen a lot of artists depictions and imaginations, and frauds and counterfeits for the sake of further research funding. I don't know that it's necessary to see the fossil evidence personally, only to understand that the fossil record is a record of change over time. And as I mentioned earlier, there are no "trillions of years." The world is only 4.5 billion years old, and life a little less than that. The fossil evidence indicates that life was unicellular for much of its history until around 550 million years ago.
Birds becoming mammals becoming fishes, with spouts on the tops of their heads, as with mamalian whales... Nah I'm not buying it. Birds never became mammals, and mammals never became fish. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, mammals evolved from reptiles which evolved from fish. Whales and dolphins are not fish, they're mammals. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024