|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4494 days) Posts: 2 From: Livermore, CA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question Evolution! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Portillo hasn't posted to this thread , whilst on the Australia thread, I have asked him again and again to tell me what his problem is with the evolutionist position. He refuses to do so. Nonetheless, I seem to recall that Portillo has "cheered" at least one of my messages on that thread, so he's clearly a bit thicker skinned than you.
Stop trying to move the attention away from yourself. Argue the points made by those who are being respectful or quit complaining about mudslinging of which you are one of the prime participants. Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Really? So why is evolution so hard to explain if an 8th grader can understand it but crashforg says it takes extensive research. Understanding evolution is easy. Any child or non-creationist could do it. This is why it was so easy to answer CMI's questions. Retailing even a fraction of the evidence for evolution would take a book. A large book. Tell you what, when I've finished writing my textbook on geology, maybe I'll do evolution. In the meantime there are textbooks on evolution already, perhaps you could read one. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Chuck77 writes: Percy writes:
For instance? Your approach to opposing theories you don't accept seems to be to maintain a lack of awareness of things we already know. I was very specific about what I was replying to - I quoted you asking if the geologic column even exists, so there's your "for instance," right in the very message you replied to. Instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you questioned its existence. You seem to be letting ignorance be your guide. As others keep noting, your messages are remarkably free of meaningful content. Instead of replying on this meta-topic, why not just respond meaningfully to what Dwise1 was saying about the geologic column in Message 170 and before.
We have a theory too. Yes, we know you think you have a theory, we haven't forgotten, you don't need to keep reminding us. But theories are based upon evidence, something we keep trying to engage you in but also something you seem remarkably reluctant to talk about, almost as if you only know what you believe scientifically but not why you believe it. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I was very specific about what I was replying to - I quoted you asking if the geologic column even exists, so there's your "for instance," right in the very message you replied to. Instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you questioned its existence. Well instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you asserted its existence. You and Chuck both seem to be committing what philosophers call a "category error".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Uh, okay, that's an interesting perspective. The actual discussion involving the geologic column was between Chuck and Dwise1.
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You are under the impression I am here to try and impress you? No Chuck. I've already described my impression of you in the next to last post I'll ever address to you. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Hi Percy,
Personally, I'd be interested to see how Chuck answers the following question; Does the Periodic Table of the Elements exist? The Geologic Column exists in the same way that the Periodic Table does; as an abstraction used to make sense of certain facts. The fact that there exist several places where near complete matches for the column can be found in the actual rocks only serves to confirm the column's usefulness as a model. Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
We have the same fossil record to look at. Creationists say it supports Creationsim. Same evidence. It's there for everyone. Except that creationists are forced to deny or misrepresent a lot of that evidence, as it otherwise contradicts rather than supports creationism.
Common designer instead of common ancestor. No transitional fossils. There is an example of denying evidence. There are lots of transitional fossils. This is well documented in the Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200. Here is one of the examples:
Unfortunately you'd have to do some research and study to understand this example, so most likely you'll resort to the standard creationist tactic of denying the evidence, or misrepresenting it somehow.
We have a theory too. Common designer. The fossil record, the flood, the ice age etc. When there are competing ideas, empirical evidence is used to test them. Creation "theory" has been tested and found to be contradicted by that evidence. There are transitionals, and there was no global flood during human times. There certainly was no ice age within the past 6,000 years. And there is good evidence for evolution rather than a common designer--there is simply no evidence at all for supernatural critters. That is a religious belief, not something that has been supported by evidence.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...so most likely you'll resort to the standard creationist tactic of denying the evidence, or misrepresenting it somehow. It seems I omitted one important creationist tactic: ignoring the evidence. It has been well over a day and there has been no response to the evidence I presented on transitionals...Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I think Granny was saying he knew more about biology when he was eight than you do now. He made no mention of knowing more about ToE.
When I was eight I had no idea about evolution, but I knew that animals had Latin names. Let me ask you, aside from web sites, what academic reading have you done into biology and ToE?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 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Coyote writes: Or telling outright porkies about the evidence, as is witnessed by denying the existence of transitional fossils. That's not "interpreting the evidence differently" at all. Stating that "transitional fossils don't exist" is not denying or misrepresenting, it's telling untruths.
Except that creationists are forced to deny or misrepresent a lot of that evidence, as it otherwise contradicts rather than supports creationism
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
We have the same fossil record to look at. Creationists say it supports Creationsim. I can grab a rock and claim it supports the existence of Leprechauns if I want. Anyone can say anything they want. Demonstrating that something is true is another ball game entirely. So why don't you show us how creationists have demonstrated that the fossil record supports their claims? A good place to start would be to tell us what a transitional fossil should look like so that we can determine if they really exist.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
Wow....and you lot accuse me of being a troll??? This is rich. I just went through this entire thread and ole chucky boy hasn't uttered one iota of evidence and the rest of you have went to great lengths to provide it.
Good show chuck old chap. Keep it up. jeebus would be proud of your ignorance.Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Another bump for Chuck77.
Paging Chuck. Paging Chuck77. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 132 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I like these answers. I would like to add to 9.:
quote: "...or that we have an intelligent designer very keen to cover its tracks."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024