Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 31 of 358 (645240)
12-24-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
12-24-2011 3:21 PM


Re: Creationists Hold The Trump Card On Origins - ignorance and pride
Buz, as everyone familiar with your little performances knows, you're the one who refuses to do proper research (and complains bitterly whenever it is suggested that you should do more). You're the one who foolishly falls for nonsense, lies and fraud (and complains bitterly when it is suggested that you should vet your sources with more care). And you're the one who complains when others DO think for themselves instead of mindlessly accepting your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2011 3:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 32 of 358 (645243)
12-24-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by agent_509
12-24-2011 2:23 PM


And a short primer on evolution . . .
Hi agent_509, and welcome back.
Yes I might have to respond to my original messages at some point, although crashfrog is right, this isn't really the thread for it.
One thing to keep in mind, is which ones actually apply to evolution, and which ones are red herrings.
A short? primer on evolution
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in hereditary traits and changes to their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Mutations can cause changes in the hereditary traits of individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations do so (many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.
Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so.
The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
The process of evolution (also called "micro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
(2) Speciation is the process whereby parent populations are divided into two or more reproductively isolated, independently evolving, daughter populations.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits and their distributions within the sub-populations.
Over time, these different responses accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population evolves independently of the other/s.
An additional observable result of speciation is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the parent species.
With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations.
Speciation, and the subsequent divergence of daughter populations, is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
The process of speciation with the subsequent formation of a branching genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations (also called "macro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from history and from the life we observe in the world all around us.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.
References
  1. Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide
    An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
  2. U. of Michigan on-line course material
    The Process of Speciation
(I recommend reading and studying these references (and other pages they are linked to), as they deal with evolution as taught by evolutionist biologists (an oxymoron) and they use the terminology as it is intended to be used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular.)
Thus when we talk about abiogenesis, for example, we can see that we are not talking about starting with a breeding population, so this is not part of the process of evolution.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 2:23 PM agent_509 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Pressie, posted 12-24-2011 5:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 33 of 358 (645245)
12-24-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dirk
12-24-2011 3:01 PM


Re: shape his thinking...
(jeers - from Buzsaw)
Priceless!

Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dirk, posted 12-24-2011 3:01 PM Dirk has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 34 of 358 (645247)
12-24-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
12-24-2011 4:43 PM


Re: And a short primer on evolution . . .
Hi Zen Deist
Evolution had nothing to do with my deconversion at all. I did not and still don't know much about biology.
I do know a lot about some rocks. Creationists did not tell the truth about those same rocks. They kept on telling untruth after untruth. Even after they were shown exactly where they were telling untruths. They still kept doing it and still keep on repeating those untruths.
That did it for me. That lead me to think that those creationists don't ever tell the truth about anything. I started investigating what they have to say about the other natural sciences, too. They always tell untruths about every branch of the natural sciences. They never tell the truth.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2011 4:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2011 7:49 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 35 of 358 (645248)
12-24-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
12-24-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Creationists Hold The Trump Card On Origins
Good point, Buz.
Always telling untruths is a bit much, in terms of characterising xians.
But it is fair to say that many xians do to try to discredit non creationists views by mis representing what the various scientific actually say (when said theories conflicts with creationist ideas).

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2011 3:56 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 36 of 358 (645250)
12-24-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by agent_509
12-23-2011 9:10 PM


Welcome back!
Isn't it curious. I've seen many stories from people who turned away from creationism and accepted science after they stopped simply believing what others told them and looked at the evidence themselves. I've never seen one story about anyone who turned away from science to creationism because the evidence told them so. The closest I can think of is Kurt Wise, but he's the first to admit that he believes the bible despite the evidence, not because of it.
Can anyone point me to a scientist who turned from science to creationism because that's where they believed the evidence led them?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by agent_509, posted 12-23-2011 9:10 PM agent_509 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 6:32 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 56 by DWIII, posted 12-25-2011 2:23 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 135 by herebedragons, posted 01-02-2012 9:43 AM subbie has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 37 of 358 (645251)
12-24-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
12-24-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Welcome back!
Isn't it curious. I've seen many stories from people who turned away from creationism and accepted science after they stopped simply believing what others told them and looked at the evidence themselves.
The young man acted to hastily. His problem is simple, he has confused evolution with creationism, they have nothing do with eachother directly and are therefore unrelated
Not thinking things through to there logical conclusion will always result in hasty and unwise choices.
Its a matter of simple logic and reasoning, not someones opinions
I know therefore he has not examined the 'Evidence'
Can anyone point me to a scientist who turned from science to creationism because that's where they believed the evidence led them?
Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity
That would be like saying can anyone point me to a scientist who has turned away from science to demonstrate his conclusions
Your question is non-sensical and illogical
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 12-24-2011 5:43 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 12-24-2011 7:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 43 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 7:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 12-24-2011 9:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 38 of 358 (645253)
12-24-2011 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2011 6:32 PM


Re: Welcome back!
Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity
HHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH
HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
seriusly rofl
magic man dun it is not science period!!!!
LOL p.s.
Even i fmagic man had dun it it would not be science
how did he do it
what proceces where involved
how can you tell he dun it
magic just does not cut it
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : put carriage returns in the hhaa section to avoid formatting issues.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 6:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 7:15 PM frako has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 39 of 358 (645254)
12-24-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by frako
12-24-2011 7:04 PM


Re: Welcome back!
HHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
seriusly rofl
magic man dun it is not science period!!!!
LOL p.s.
Even i fmagic man had dun it it would not be science
how did he do it
what proceces where involved
how can you tell he dun it
magic just does not cut it
Well an actual argument in response to what i had argued, would have been better, but if this is all you have Ill understand
Its not majic, its science, all reasoning to proper conclusions is science, unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise
I guess you have nothing better than the above
Dawn Bertot
Edited by AdminModulous, : added carriage returns to the HHAA section to avoid formatting issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 12-24-2011 7:04 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by frako, posted 12-24-2011 7:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 41 by hooah212002, posted 12-24-2011 7:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 12-25-2011 4:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 40 of 358 (645258)
12-24-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2011 7:15 PM


Re: Welcome back!
Its not majic, its science, all reasoning to proper conclusions is science, unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise
Well no creationism is not reasoned at all it is anti reason.
Scientist looks at the world and says to himself i wonder how our planet was made let me check if i can see a sloarsystem forming among the stars.
Creatinost looks at the world i wonder how this flat disk im standing on is was made better check the bible.
Scientist i think i have a moddel how this planet was formed let me check the math if it works.
Creationis umm science guy you still working on your crackpot theory i have the anwser alredy god dun it with magic.
scientist oki think it all adds up let me publish the paper and see what others think abbout it if they find any holes.
Creationist u still not dun
Scientis hmm the other scientist are right i need more evidence to support my timeline this other guy invented many dating methods i wonder if icould use them and see if the data coroborates my timeline of the earth forming.
Creatinoist il give you the anwser its 6000 years cmmon u still not dun
Ok so now i got my moddel 4 billion years ago the earth formed was hot then slowly cooled got hit by the moon warmed up again the moon fell in to orbit arround the planet.
Creatinoist u silly scientist you got it all wrong my book says god dun it 6000 years ago, and il BEND any evidence i can to support this and IGNORE the rest.
Scientist oh im not dun yet il never be new data is comming in every day and none supports you magic man "theory" so drop it alredy. If one piece of evidence negates my theory il drop it and find a new one because that is how science works. Every form of dating that we have at our disposal today says the earth is older then 6000 years so FUCK YOU CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE!!!

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 41 of 358 (645259)
12-24-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2011 7:15 PM


Re: Welcome back!
That's great and all, but you've had ample chance to prove your point and have failed to do so at every turn so perhaps you would like to stop posting off topic bullshit psycho-babble?
And since you are woefully ignorant of what reason it, a reasoned response would sound something like "yes, I indeed am off topic. I shall start a topic on Dawn Bertot creationism".

Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 358 (645261)
12-24-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Pressie
12-24-2011 5:03 PM


Re: And a short primer on evolution . . .
Hi Pressie,
Evolution had nothing to do with my deconversion at all. I did not and still don't know much about biology.
Nor do I expect that it has much to do with other deconversions. Creationism has no real problems with evolution -- both micro-evolution within populations and macro-evolution dividing species, are necessary for creationist models to work (all that swift and varied descent from the purported "kinds"). No, the real beef is with abiogenesis and the numbers and forms of original species.
This is why so much creationist verbiage about evolution relies on misrepresenting what evolution is actually about. Thus the short primer -- for reference if for no other purpose.
I do know a lot about some rocks. Creationists did not tell the truth about those same rocks. They kept on telling untruth after untruth. Even after they were shown exactly where they were telling untruths. They still kept doing it and still keep on repeating those untruths.
As far as I can see, the most telling arguments against a young earth concept are the ones involving the rock solid evidence of vast age, as I have laid out in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? threads. The evidence shows that a young earth concept is just not compatible with the evidence.
That did it for me. That lead me to think that those creationists don't ever tell the truth about anything. ...
I wouldn't say never, but it certainly is not common for the truth to be presented and argued correctly in these debates.
... I started investigating what they have to say about the other natural sciences, too. They always tell untruths about every branch of the natural sciences. They never tell the truth.
Another reason for the short primer.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Pressie, posted 12-24-2011 5:03 PM Pressie has not replied

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 4468 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


(6)
Message 43 of 358 (645262)
12-24-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2011 6:32 PM


Re: Welcome back!
Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity
ROFL, are you thinking of the same definition of creationism everyone else is? If so, creationism conclusions are derived from the bible, and then creationists try and find facts to support it. This wouldn't be a problem, if facts supporting it actually existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2011 6:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 12-24-2011 8:08 PM agent_509 has replied
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 12-24-2011 10:09 PM agent_509 has not replied
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-25-2011 1:00 AM agent_509 has replied
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 1:32 AM agent_509 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 358 (645263)
12-24-2011 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by agent_509
12-24-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Welcome back!
It is so funny when Creationists make any claim that they follow the scientific method or manner. It is also simply false and once again an example of the misrepresentation and total lack of any culture of honesty similar to what is the basis of Science.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 7:57 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 8:15 PM jar has replied

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 4468 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


Message 45 of 358 (645264)
12-24-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
12-24-2011 8:08 PM


Re: Welcome back!
creationists are the scientific rational ones, and evolutionists are the religious, dogmatic zealots who have blind faith. Interesting projection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 12-24-2011 8:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 12-24-2011 8:31 PM agent_509 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024