Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is True Because Life Needs It
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 188 (646105)
01-03-2012 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Invader Scooch
12-17-2011 2:36 AM


Hi - welcome.
Life is always changing, minutely to the human eye, but just as if I decided to splurge on candy bars, I wouldn't be fat instantly (though I'd sure feel that way), but over time, if I were to lead the sedentary lifestyle of the common couch potato, in a few weeks I would cause the bathroom scale to cry. The same is true for life.
My problem with applying this sound reasoning to the Theory of Evolution is that you can observe, over the years, to what extent you change so that micro will lead to macro change.
The problem with evolution is that if you observe a snail in the Cambrian era, and a snail now, you will not see a logically equivalent change between the extinct organism and it's extant counterpart.
Or if I build a wall, I can observe how bricks are added.
The induction of organisms in the fossils, shows us the differences between the kinds of organisms are not leading anywhere.
So the snail has basically became, ultimately, a snail, according to the law of identity.
While I agree that change happens, it does not follow logically that evolution is a necessity, only that change is a necessity.
There has been change in finches, for example, for the same reason the skin on your feet will harden if you go without footwear for the next three years. This does not mean you have to become an elephant, it just means you have to adapt, and the all-wise designer that created you, enables you to adapt.
. To a lot of people I have debated, it is just a game.
I agree with you on this point, certainly.
If we go by the Creation model, all life was just plopped down as it was with no mechanism to adhere to the change
That is not what we would claim as creationists. That is definitely a strawman. We show and examine marvelous contingencies in nature. For example, a star-fish can re-grow it's limbs. This has nothing to do with evolution.
There is a massive induction of example of incredible adaptations in creatures, in order for them to survive, there is just no adequate proof that it leads to them changing their genomes.
The difference is that of the facts, that show fossils that prove kinds of creatures, and a posited theory, where you have to imagine that certain selected organisms are "transitionals". You have to IMAGINE that those organisms actually were related, had offspring, and slowly became what your cladogram says they became, whereas the facts themselves require no imagination. I don't have to prove that humans become humans over time, because they simply do, so do the plants, the same plants, in the fossils, the same trees, the same marine forms, etc.....There is a massive induction of organisms that have not "changed" in an evolutionary way, otherwise, like your analogy, we could observe the changes, as you slowly become fat, but the snail in the Cambrian or the pollen in the Pre-Cambrian, or whatever, only have become, the same basic things. So have the micro-organisms such as HIV. There are different strains, but they are still HIV.
You have to study logic more, because you haven't yet grasped how truly VAST the claim of evolution is.
The analogy of becoming fat is such a simplification of the claim of evolution.
The claim is truly vast, that a tree from a monkey from a blade of grass, all came from a common ancestory.
TIME, alone, does not prove this claim at all, logically speaking. What we should see is that if you eat and eat and eat, you become a kind of eating-species, with no legs or arms, and a stomache that takes up 95% of your body, with a strange new design of tongue that extends several metres to help you eat.
LOGICALLY, THAT would be evolution being proven.
For me, the explanations, the hypothetics, the imagination, the faith, all for this process, just does not match what bares out in reality.
Nice to meet you, at least you didn't make the usual mistakes, such as a pompous tone, or an attacking ad hominem countenance. Keep being reasonable, it is far prettier than your older counterparts have become.
P.S. I should add that I am not dogmatic about this issue in the sense that I can accept that I can be wrong, that is very easily possible. Although I can't find logical reasons why I am wrong. Others think I am wrong although I don't usually go into why the are wrong, I just let them have their say because you have to step outside yourself a little and try hard to see if they are right. I am tough on myself.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Invader Scooch, posted 12-17-2011 2:36 AM Invader Scooch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 8:51 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 188 (646116)
01-03-2012 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Granny Magda
01-03-2012 8:51 AM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
Well gee, it's a good job that the ToE doesn't make any such claim then.
No-one claimed that organisms must diverge from their ancestral population at the same rate, or anything even close to it. That's just a crazy strawman based on your deep ignorance of the topic.
No, I understand normalized selection or evolutionary stasis, it is not that matter, it is the matter of logic, concerning a grand claim. I was mentioning the logic behind those claims, and how they bare out in reality. So it is your ignorance, afterall, in failing to see what the point was that I was making.
It is not enough that it does not have to happen, it's that there is a claim stating that it did happen, which therefore requires correspondingly huger evidence.
Er, mike... The offspring of the snail are not the same object as the original snail. the law of identity doesn't apply here. Obviously
So the two are NOT essentially what they are? Snails?
The offspring of a snail is snails. The POTENTIAL non sequitur is hidden within the claim, that "snails, over time, become NOT snails". Therefore the burden of proof is to show that snails do not become what they essentially are, and always have essentially been. You can claim that inbetween they became trees then evolved back into snails if you want, but that has nothing to do with facts or reality. You can insert any evolutionary story in between.
Hey look! You got something right! You should probably print that out and have it framed.
It happens rather a lot, you see I have a propensity to observe what is logically correct. It's more that you have spotted this, this one time, rather than it not happening often.
Of course, your achievement is somewhat undermined by the fact that this has so little to do with evolution that one is left wondering what the heck made you see fit to bring it up at all. The modern ToE doesn't claim that acquired characteristics of the kind that you describe have anything to do with evolution. That would be Lammarckism, which has been discredited for over a century. Do try to keep up with the state of the art, at least to within a hundred years or so.
I was responding to the claim that evolution is required, rather than merely change. Incase you did not realize, you said that I was right about that. So to say that a starfish only needs the ingenius method the designer gave, of re-growing it's limbs, is a very astute point, because this proves that you don't need anything except what the designer gave you. You don't need an evolution, you just need the ability to change and adapt, or any other clever contingencies the Creator gives. You missed that point.
Oh dear, you're back to being wrong again. I knew it couldn't last.
Are you identical to your parents Mike? No? Then you're wrong.
No - I am right, there is no evolutionary change between me and my parents. It is the law of identity again. You see, there is nothing present in me that was not fully human in them.
If I make a brick, then replicate a brick, that can go on for thousands of years, and you will still be replicating bricks. Otherwise logically, you are saying TWO things.
1. That evolution can have stasis.
2. Micro=macro.
If micro=macro, then you should be able to observe and evolutionary change between a man that lived 500 years ago and me. You can't have both.
There is a genuine logical dichotomy you are expressing.
Either organisms don't show an evolutionary change and "stasis" is not an example of micro=macro, or it is an example of micro=macro and you can see examples of that, as with the fat-man analogy.
If my friend eats and eats, he becomes fat (evolution), the problem is that if you reproduce humans they will only become the same essential thing, that is - humans.
Well I can't lay claim to that. The thing is that there is no polite way of telling you that you are completely clueless about evolution and that your arguments are gibberish
And yet your post to me has all the hallmarks of failure. As the opening post said, it usually becomes a game, and I added to that, that it usually comes down to statements such as the above quote.
If you can only say I am wrong, but can't show I am wrong, it is natural for you to make emotive epithet, question-begging statements.
I, on the other hand, have never felt the need for this behaviour.
No you're not Mike. You are breathtakingly arrogant, even in the same breath as you utter grotesque and shameful ignorance. If referring to yourself as "the Irrefutable One" is being tough on yourself, I'd hate to see you when you're letting it all hang out.
I think you need to be a damn sight harder on yourself. It might motivate you to bloody learn something about evolution before sounding off on it. Nearly nine years you've been here and you still don't seem to have even the slightest grasp of the ToE and what it really says. That's ... well, it's not good, you know what I'm saying?
That is nothing other than an ad-hominem, questioning-begging-epithet, emotionally charged rant that proves precisely nothing.
I, as ever, feel no need to insult you back.
Have a nice day.
P.s. It's not that I don't understand evolution, it is that I understand it and yet don't believe it happened. If you were truly scientific, this would not matter to you in the least. If anything, you are living proof that evolution is a dogma, because you can't live with me - I am an intolerable taste in your mouth, just because I will not jump to the vast mental gymnasts evolution requires. What you fail to realize is that this is the problem, not me.
If I was irrefutable, whey would I say that it is quite possible that I am completely wrong? I noticed you did not quote that part of my post.
Thanks for the post, it is a prime example of what the new guy should endeavour to avoid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 8:51 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 9:54 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 11:24 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 188 (646117)
01-03-2012 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Granny Magda
01-03-2012 8:51 AM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
You are breathtakingly arrogant, even in the same breath as you utter grotesque and shameful ignorance.
What has this got to do with anything at all, in my response to the new member?
I submit that the new member should look at my behaviour, the things I have rationally stated, and then look at you, and what you have stated about the PERSON, rather than the information I have provided.
I urge the new member to see the difference, that I did not feel the need to do anything other than talk about information.
Why, Granny Magda, if you are an example, would I want to be anything like you? If you had the truth you would not need to do this. There is no truth in you, nor do you care for the truth. All you want to do is make me look bad because inside yourself, you can't handle the truth, that God does exist, that you do have sin, and that you can't refute His wisdom.
He has given me wisdom. I am His witness. He is the irrefutable one, not me, I am a vessel, a joke, a prized fool by which He delights in watching me defeat the best wisdom the world can provide.
I will not dare insult you. There is another that will judge you. I have the truth, therefore I do not need to tell lies about you or say false things, or do anything that you do, and you will not succeed in changing the nature of God.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 8:51 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 188 (646127)
01-03-2012 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
01-03-2012 9:54 AM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
You have misunderstood, and ignored, as an admin, the many ad hominem attacks upon my person. I have no respect for you any more.
I was talking not just of science, but of logical claims.
I am a human, and in 500 years, there will be no morphological differences in my descendants that makes them "NOT, human" according to the law of identity. No increase of size, towards becoming a fat-man, logically there is not an equivalent, this is what you can't see.
So there is nothing present in me, that was not present in my parents, that is not adequately expressed as human.
If I have ginger hair, and they have black hair, or whatever changes there are, genetically, this does not show macro-evolution, which is my point.
If it does show macro evolution, like the fat-man analogy, then in 10 zillion years, an identical human to me, would also "prove" macro-evolution.
It is not that evolution does not need to happen, morphologically, I know that organisms can have a stable gene pool, it is stated in evolutionary literature time again how little some organisms have changed over millions of years.
That is NOT my point, my point is that you can't logically use this as evidence FOR evolution.
No morphological change does not LOGICALLY match the claim that all organisms stemmed from an original ancestor. If anything, morphological stasis shows that the same organisms become, essentially, the same organism.
If a human becomes a human over a zillion years, and this is evidence for evolution, then tell me how, right now, please answer, WHAT would qualify as humans being evidenced to become humans?
We claim a small claim, that creatures ultimately become what they already are, and we gather evidence, a vast accumulation of examples of very superficial "change" over millions of years.
Logically, whether you like it or not, or hate mikey for it - this is evidence for x becoming, ultimately, x.
You say that micro will become micro - but logically, if you can only show a human becoming a human, then how are you showing the changes that lead to bigger change?
With the fat-man, we can observe his belly growing, but if we reproduce humans, we only see humans. If we look at micro-organisms, they become the same things, their adaptations do not lead to the original claim. We have strains of HIV but not something leading to macro.
Change itself does not logically lead to a macro evolution. You will never be able to change that. It has nothing to do with my understanding of allele frequencies or divergence or convergence or orthologs or homologous features or genetic drift, isolated populations, endogenous retro viruses or ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, branchial folds nor of my ignorance of cladistics, cladograms, monophyletic taxa or archaic features as observed in the australopithecines or gracile features in the human skull, and vice versa nor has it anything to do with abiogenesis, the four nucleotides, synthesis of cells, or anything else. My understanding is clear - reality and logic are the issue, and a million evolutionists will not remove the truth.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 9:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 2:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 188 (646162)
01-03-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Granny Magda
01-03-2012 11:24 AM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
Yes, a claim that no evolutionary scientist has ever made. Nice work.
Scientists don't claim every organism on the planet stemmed from a common ancestry? Then I have nothing to say.
The parent snail is not the same object as the offspring snail. The law of identity does not apply. This is very simple stuff, honestly.
I am afraid you have not understood in the least.
The law of identity states that something is essentially what it is.
I am not saying the parent snail is the same object as the offspring snail. Please show where I said that, I didn't.
I am saying that the parent and the offspring, according to the law of identity, both represent everything of their kind, and are not anything else. Nice try though.
Cladistics doesn't work that way. You've just misunderstood it.
It's nothing to do with my point. My point is that the snail in the Cambrian and the extant counterpart encompass not macro evolution. The equivilant claim would be to evidence that a snail has become something other than a snail. Since snails become snails as all the evidence shows, I don't have to prove anything. It is factual that the snail in the Cambrian and it's extant counterpart are essentially the same kind of creature, according to the law of identity, otherwise you are saying that even though they look close to exactly the same, they have changed to the degree of difference between that of a grass blade and a rabbit. (Again, I know the PROPOSED stories of evolution, that one species might divert into another creature, but I am looking at reality and facts, not what is proposed to have happened, in an evolutionary-proposed history. It is concerning that you can's discern the difference. Explaining evolution does not mean it happened, I am looking at a vast picture of lineages, that are stable, have not changed morphologically - now you can say a big evolution diverted from it all you want, that won't mean it did, I do not accept the proposed imagined cladistic, as the cladistic is a proposal not a fact. We know it is factual that snails produce snails we can prove it, but you can't prove a cladistic that is a conjecture, that is not as powerful, logically. This you don't understand. Even evidence is not as powerful as fact, that x produces x).
THAT is the general claim of evolution.
Being right isn't enough; you should be aiming at being right and relevant. In waffling about non-evolutionary change in a discussion about evolution, you are just gibbering.
A claim was made that you need evolution. I shown you didn't, you just need what the designer has provided, adaptation, change, do not lead to evolution otherwise a man with an archaic eyebrow ridge should be classified as a neanderthal.
Superficial adaptations in kinds of creature, do not support evolution, they falsify it.
2: Micro does equal macro. They are just the same thing viewed over different time-scales.
If that is true then you can find a thousand year old human and show me the changes over time. Or HIV, which replicates thousands of times faster.
The difference between the snail in the Cambrian and our living snail, does not show a macro-evolution, unless you counted one mutation per every billion years.
It is not fair logically, for creatures that have basically stayed the same, to not qualify as refuting evolution. To say they haven't evolved for evolutionary reasons is circular reasoning, you are giving ad-hoc excuses for why a fixity of morphological forms are basically fixed. Those ad-hoc explanations are not more powerful than the falsification evidence, which we see. We see kinds basically saying the same, even the Cambrian has most of the major phyla, this is not what you would expect given macro-evolution, you would not expect a massive induction of organisms, that over time, have basically stayed the same.
I have shown that you are wrong. Repeatedly.
Lol.
Then why do you constantly mischaracterise evolution? For shits and giggles? I mean, you make mistakes in the most elementary facts about evolutionary theory. You don't even seem to understand the difference between acquired and inherited change. That's awful mike, just awful.
Of course I do, acquired would be convergent evolution, as an example. Inherited change would be a change in the gene pool, such as smaller legs being selected over longer legs.
It's nothing to do with understanding evolution. Understanding it won't mean it happened. The evidence in the fossils shows a massive fixity of kinds, even the Cambrian has most of the major phyla. You have this weird belief where you conflate evolution being true, with understanding it, as though the two things are the same. It is very obtuse.
Just a personal wake-up call for you Mike. If you will get almost everything you say wrong, on a debate board, you will get called on it. If you claim to be humble whilst eulogising yourself, you will get called. Get the beam out of your eye.
Thanks, but I don't get almost everything wrong. That I know this kind of makes me a litte wise to your own abilities.
If I know you are making false statetments about me, simply because I know, then what else are you getting wrong? You have the favour of the group, popular acceptance. Logically you have not even dented the problems I have expounded.
The fact remains a snail is ultimately a snail in the Cambrian as well as it's living counterpart. Same with the coelecanthe, feathers, pollen, fish, plants, trees, there are thousands, I have saw the fossils for myself, and they look pretty much exactly the same as their living counter parts. Sorry Granny, those are facts, and bleeting they are evolutionary favourable facts all day long will not change anything.
A classic example of your personal delusions of grandeur. You aren't a prized fool. you're just a fool. just another anonymous internet nutball. You're not defeating "the best wisdom the world can provide", you're just ranting on a message board. Get a grip on yourself.
No, I am a witness to God, I tell the truth about God. He has told me I am his witness. There is no grandeur to it. If someone calls himself a fool of God then he is wiser than a man. The foolishness of God is wiser than men.
It comforts you if you can label me as a nut-case. I will not call you anything. I will not insult you or say anything to you or attack your person, and this is my witness, that the truth is more powerful than the false and petty words you throw at me. That will not change God or the truth. I do not need to insult you because He who is in me is greater than the one who is in the world.
If you had the truth you could be blameless, you would not dare utter a word against me. Therefore my words have the power to be my witness, that the truth is in me, more beautiful than anything petty or sinful. I don't need to sin against you as you do me, therefore I will pray for you, because it is a pitiable and futile fight that you fight, and your prize? The grave.
Mutate and Survive
No thanks. I do fine as a specialized creation, I have the greatest gifts possible, and the best future ever. He shows those who love Him, by His spirit He has revealed it to me. If I am God's mad fool, then I am wiser than man.
I have said I could be quite wrong. You have insulted me and sinned against me. Your own words show that there is no truth in you or you would not have done these things.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 11:24 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 3:04 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 188 (646180)
01-03-2012 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
01-03-2012 2:53 PM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
That's fair enough, but I fail to see why these superficial changes are regarded as evolutionary change.
I understand, that according to the ToE, any change is evolution. So stasis of a population might be called a successful balance the species has reached.
Logically, look at the tautological problem, of "evolutionary" change. The evolutionists can define anything as evolutionary, and therefore anything will evidence evolution.
Logically, that is a particularly tenuous scenario and an induction of confirmation evidence is already pretty weak, logically speaking.
If anything, any scenario and every conclusion, is evolutionary, then this is pretty weak as a theory. Think about evolutionary convergence, for example. If different species can have similar morphologies and have no relation evolutionarily speaking, that should prove that logically, you can have very similar morphology without having an ancestry. But instead, it is called, evolutionary convergence.
Dawkins says the eye evolved separately some 40-odd times, IIRC. For me, that shows terrific favour towards evolution, where the evidence has clearly not got anything to do with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 2:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 9:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 28 of 188 (646185)
01-03-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Granny Magda
01-03-2012 3:04 PM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
You said that as though it were somehow a coherent thought, instead of what it is, namely an incoherent blunder.
For the Nth time, the ToE does not require or even predict that all ancestral populations must show "logically equivalent change". That's just a bit of silliness that you made up.
No - it isn't. It's the notation of logic, that a grand general claim must have correspondingly huge evidence.
It is not a blunder to say that snails still exist, as well as a coelecanthe, etc.....The list is endless, of organisms that exist now, that were thought to have evolved into other organisms.
You still think I am confused about lineages. I am not. I know a snail can branch off into an evolution of something else. You can say that all of these creatures in the Cambrian branched off, but that doesn't mean they did. The evidence shows that they have become the same basic creatures, without this branching of lineage. Sure, you can propose lineages and cladograms, but the actual facts show that all of the phyla arrived, or most of it, right there, out of nowhere, and that there is an induction of evidence supporting same basic organisms.
Are you going to argue that evolution happened every single time, when it was not needed? Because those creatures are still here? All of them?
Then you are misapplying the Law. The parent snail is not identical to the offspring. It may still be called a snail, but if you consider that to be an important difference, then you are confusing the name of a thing with the actual thing itself.
The Law of Identity does not apply here precisely because the organisms concerned are changing.
No - you are confusing it in your head. I am not stating that the parent is identical physically, or I would be saying that me and my mother are physically identical. That is a very silly mistake you have made. Why do you think I mentioned ginger hair and black hair? now we know that it is not what I am wrong about, it is your complete lack of comprehension, for why on earth would I state that me and my mother are identical? And you think I am the nut-job? Lol!
I am saying that everything that makes a snail a snail is there, no more no less, as with the previous ancestor.
This is the Cambrian version of "Chordate Kind" (i.e. you and me and all fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds and others);
You say that we came from them. The burden of proof is on you, the facts show humans become humans, breeding anything x will ultimately lead to x. Remember, I don't really believe in evolutionary time-spans. Your epithet, "out of your mind", "nut-case" etc, in themselves are question-begging epithetits and are ad nauseum, but you still bleet them fallaciously. If anything you are the one that does not learn.
I love it when you guys take a pop at my sig. It always seems to bring out the real vintage crazy. This latest screed is no exception, consisting as it does of crazy ramblings, arrogant and self-aggrandising waffle, an insinuated proxy threat and an Ad Hom for good measure. Truly, kudos to you Mike, it's a real classic of internet fundamentalist insanity.
Again with those epithets. Looks like you don't have any rebuttal, just those personal attacks like a leaking tap, that prove precisely nothing. Sorry mate, proves nothing at all.
Convergent evolution is an example of a none-inherited evolution because there is no relation between the species. So it is an example of how you don't have to inherit a similar morphology, it can come from necessity.
Even if I don't understand evolution to the fanatical degree you do, you are under the delusion that understanding the hypothetics of evolution means it happened.
Why on earth am I obliged to believe it happened when I have already taught many times that a weak induction, a picture, doesn't come close to proving it logically.
What happened in this thread is I refuted a claim by the new member, and then you incorrectly attacked me and jumped to many wild conclusions and incorrect statements about me.
If I am a nut, I don't think I am showing any signs. It looks like your argument is that because I don't agree with you I am insane.
That is called a non sequitur, which is something that does not follow.
You have the burden of proof to evidence the MASSIVE logical claim that humans evolved from fish, when the evidence for such speculations is incredibly tenuous.
Again, I am not insane for not believing this. It's arrogant that you believe I am a nut-job simply because you have misunderstood a load of things I have said and tried to play the old "if you don't believe evolution you haven't understood it".
Sorry to deflate your balloon, but educating people on evolution will not mean that it happened.
Get over it. Get over me.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 3:04 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 3:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 188 (646197)
01-03-2012 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Granny Magda
01-03-2012 3:45 PM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
There are no strawmans. It is an observation. The general claim of evolution is that every single organism on this planet stemmed from an original common ancestor. That is what evolutionists state, and even if they don't state it, logical notation shows that unstated assumptions are still part of the claim. So - you got confused again. You're strong with your evolution-story, but in the logic-arena, you are only going to get killed.
Fact is logic itself requires, that to prove the ToE, you have to show that the mechanisms have the power to evolve into new creatures.
It is irrelevant that organisms don't need to change, necessarily, the point it a logical one, that the claim is that all of these changes came about BECAUSE of evolution. To show this is an absolutely miniscule way would be to show one novel morphology in the lab. That is not the case.
The actual facts, if you ignore evolutionary dogma, about the fossil record being a record of life evolving rather than being a grave, shows that the Cambrian contains snails. There are, in many different eras, morphologies that are identical to todays, such as pollen and feathers. These facts in themselves do not show a history of evolution. You can expound a hypothetic as to how we came from fish until blue in the face, the fact remains that logically, you are on astoundingly weak ground, called inductive reasoning. The falsification for evidence, logically, can ONLY be NONE-evolution.
If you say that none-evolution also favours evolution and does not falsify it, then logically you can not falsify evolution.
Therefore because the claim of the ToE is so massively extraordinarily HUGE, the weight of evidence must be correspondingly AS huge.
We should not assume it happened, no matter how good you think the picture of it is. You should observe that if kinds of creatures have become the same basic creatures, that this none-change does not logically line up with that massive claim.
The burden of proof is not on me to exactly state the hypothetics of evolution. I have an understanding of evolution, enough of an understanding, but logically that has nothing to do with the problem in hand.
You could be a retard creationist, and logically the burden of proof would still be on the evolutionist to show that humans don't necessarily become humans, against the facts/reality that they do. The induction is 100% We have only ever know kinds to become what they essentially already are, as completed designs.
No, I was operating under the delusion that those who claim to have refuted the ToE might first understand what it states.
I do. It states that every organism was a result of changes caused by an evolution, a potential non-sequitur.
Your lack of understanding of logic does not enable you to see that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant that witholds a potential non sequitur.
Reality shows that the creatures always produce what they essentially are. The fossils agree. I am not obliged to prove reality, that humans reproduce humans, fish, fish, trees, trees etc...
It is not a vast claim to observe reality and believe reality, the vast claim is that every unique and diversely different design came through evolution and to prove that you have to bring down the moon for me, L O G I C A L L Y.
Now calling mike the most ignorant plantpot, an insane person, a nut-job will not change the fact that if anything, the facts show that x ultimately has always reproduced x.
The alternative it to believe in a house of cards, and each card is a speculation.
We know of many lineages that turned out to not be accepted. Logically this PROVES that no matter how complex the theory, it does not prove anything to speculate and even evidence that an evolution happened.
Yes, admittedly, I am not a fanatic of the theory to the degree you are, but be under no delusions, no amount of understanding the theory will make these problems go away.
I know you believe I am deluded, mad, you can state it to your hearts content, it will not change reality. I have understood everything I have said, and it still stands. You can have a thousand epithets about how mad we all are. A mad, retarded, deformed frog-man, out of his mind, completely gone, can still state something true.
Goodbye.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 3:45 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2012 4:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2012 4:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 5:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024