Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2017 6:02 PM
390 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,015 Year: 13,621/21,208 Month: 3,103/3,605 Week: 445/933 Day: 34/56 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 91 of 100 (379660)
01-25-2007 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Someone who cares
10-19-2006 11:39 PM


Catching Up & Etc.
S1WC writes:

As for your essay, it should be interesting. I hope that when you write your essay and post it on the world wide web you will understand how I felt writing mine and having others constantly attack it. I don't really mind debating material where I was really mistaken, it helps me learn, but I feel that some of the other more controversial debating where we can't get anywhere is excessive. Maybe you'll understand this when others take apart your essay, one possible member being me... To make it fair.

Just thought I'd let you know I'm still here and that I will soon post as you are almost caught up. Also, in regard to my religious beliefs, they are beginning to be discussed here at Message 1 should you choose to debate these as well someday when you have the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Someone who cares, posted 10-19-2006 11:39 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Someone who cares, posted 02-14-2007 11:10 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3162 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 92 of 100 (385293)
02-14-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by anglagard
01-25-2007 12:18 AM


Re: Catching Up & Etc.
Thanks for letting me know, I started to wonder where you went...

About your religion, I skimmed through your post there, and many of the concepts that I read about I have heard from others on a different forum, but I don't believe I've heard that particular name of your religion before. I have debated earlier, on a different forum, some of those concepts and their validity, esp. concerning free will. But I'm not so sure that's what you want to debate on that thread, I believe you want to debate whether or not that was a good definition of your religion and if it was athiesm in disguise, that I am not qualified to debate for this is the first time I hear of it. But if you would like to debate some of the concepts, more like Christianity vs. Spinoza Pantheism, I may be interested, after we finish this debate. But of course, that would be outside of science and more towards religion, and I am not a theologian; but I have debated the validity of some of those concepts before.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by anglagard, posted 01-25-2007 12:18 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3162 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 93 of 100 (385302)
02-15-2007 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by anglagard
12-02-2006 6:52 PM


Re: Supposed Loss of Genetic Information
Point 99: The point here is that this "natural selection" does not help evolution, thus it shouldn't be used as evidence to support evolution. Why? Because natural selection with mutations and isolation combined cannot progress a creature to a more complex one, they cannot help in making macroevolution possible. No mechanism is known to increase the genetic code or its complexity for the better good of an organism.

Point 100: The moths do not show the loss of genetic code, that was a general statement about mutations with an example of the wingless beetles. The moth part was that it wasn't really macroevolution, it was merely a variation of a kind. The moth stayed a moth, it didn't evolve into a different insect! Thus this example does not support macroevolution.

Point 101: Ok, I was talking about mutations, and you say mutations can add NEW genetic code to a creature? Show this to me, in nature, because I highly doubt you will succeed. Mutations only alter previously existing genetic information, and usually for the worse. Mutations have NEVER added new genetic code to an organism about tissues or organs or structures that were not previously in the organism. Prove me wrong. Because for macroevolution, mutations are one of the mechanisms claimed to help it, yet mutations almost always have a negative effect, and are ALWAYS detrimetal to the genetic code; they damage the code, they remove information, they switch the order, they mess it all up. Never has a mutation been observed to create order or higher complexity. Would a tornado make your house better designed? I think not. Mutations are harmful, they ruin the genetic code; and for macroevolution, the genetic code would have to increase in complexity to make a more complex organism, even if it's over millions of years, the overall result has to be positive or it would be against the basic concept of evolution - cell to man.

Loss of information? I would say that this would be when an organism loses the proper code needed for some part of it, like if a mutation reorganized the genetic code for a body part, and made that body part malfunction, the organsim has "lost" the proper genetic code for that part, since mutations cannot go back and fix problems, they only destroy and disorganize. The proper genetic code was lost in the past, and now the organism must live without or die.

As for your quote, let's take it apart:

Bullet one: Increased genetic variety in a population is allowable under variations within the kind, this I have no conflict with. Thus it is beside the point, since no new genetic code was added, all that happened was a variation within a kind, this is NOT macroevolution, and this is NOT an increase in new genetic code for the slow development of other body parts.

Bullet two: I presume this is not NEW genetic information either. What we are looking for is NEW genetic information which would actually have something to do with macroevolution. Because using previously existing genetic information has nothing to do with macroevolution, it does not make it anymore plausible.

Bullet three: Once again, keyword - NEW, not previously existing in the organism, and this has not been shown to be.

Bullet four: Same as above, we have not seen new genetic information increases, thus the whole quote failed in helping macroevolution.

As for computer simulations, they mean nothing. I know you evolutionists love to use them because nature doesn't provide the proof you need, but a simulation of how it MIGHT have happened is not legitimate proof that it has or is or even will happen.

Usefulness? Oh, I believe the above points are EXTREMELY useful. I don't think you should just get away with the wave of a hand. We are talking about the two most important mechanisms by which evolution is supposed to happen, and they have been shown to be impossible in helping macroevolution. I would expect a much better reply, because otherwise, you are left with no valid mechanism by which evolution can occur, thus evolution is impossible. A lot is at stake here, and I am willing to debate MUCH more about natural selection and mutations, I believe these points are VERY important, they destroy the very foundations of evolution.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by anglagard, posted 12-02-2006 6:52 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3162 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 94 of 100 (385308)
02-15-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by anglagard
12-06-2006 2:28 AM


Re: YEC Ecology of Unnecessary Death and Disease
Point 102: I belive that if it weren't for the mass intervention of humans, many species would still be alive... But the point is, I was talking about the cycles in nature, not the survival of creatures. The cycles show a perfect harmony, and they have to be fine tuned to work; with just a bit of changing it would destroy much of nature and life as we know it.

Point 103: Yes, I like to be cautious about what I say, and that tid bit about water coming from and to space is exactly why I used the wording I did.
What's amazing about it? Could a big bang create the earth that would have this amazing recycling program? I mean, consider all the temperature changes required, could a random process guide this? Could it make the four seasons? - Which are required to grow crops. Could it make the wind? - Which is required to fertilize and reproduce many plants. Could it make anything for that matter? - Which makes like on earth and only earth possible.

Point 104: The food chain evolved? Please, if it used millions of years of guess and check and random chance, how could that make something as sophisticated as the food chain?

I don't argue that two things can happen at once, but random chance does not satisfy the answer to how such complexities could arrive in life, Creation does.

Point 105: Yes, the term is subjective, but I do not believe the earth is "overflowing" with humans when I see the vast empty lands on this earth. Sure, the population has increased, but that doesn't means humans are "falling off the earth" because of pushing and shoving.

As for killing, I am not for killing, in fact, I would think non-Christians would have such thoughts.

Killing in the hospitals? Psst... Here's a secret, if you're old in the hospital, they do not cure you but only destroy you and bring you closer to death. I will not give out any more information about this or where I got it.

Point 106: I don't think those dates and numbers of original people fit the evolution model... But it would work for Creation, just the conclusions drawn, not the reasons or methods. Since Creation says man came from two humans less than 200,000 years ago.

Point 107: Mutations are random though, and mutations fit the category of supposed evolution mechanisms.

Plus, I believe mutations and sickness only came after God cursed the earth and all that was on it. When God originally Created everything, it was good. After the curse, mutations started doing their thing, sicknesses started, suffering began. But, I still see the remnants of the pre-Curse conditions in nature today, from the beauty of a rose, to the functionability of my hand, to the comprehension of my brain, to the beautiful design in the insects, etc... Don't you? Or do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning and think you are some advanced monkey form that came about by chance and random processes? Please, be honest with yourself, and you don't have to reply to this last question...

WHEW! I caught up! Now the ball is in your court.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by anglagard, posted 12-06-2006 2:28 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by anglagard, posted 03-23-2007 5:59 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 95 of 100 (391160)
03-23-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Someone who cares
02-15-2007 12:43 AM


Conclusion or "I'm Baaacccck"
S1WC writes:

In conclusion, we have seen and learned much about evolution. We have learned about natural selection, mutations, fossil finds, hominids, chances for evolution, the geologic layers, popular examples for evolution, vestigial organs, rock dating methods, the primitive environment, and much more. We have explored many things from an angle no often used. The final question is left to you: is evolution true, or false?

Oh, I would say I have learned something from the essay, but it is doubtful that it is something you may have expected. I now realize that there are at least 100 categories of millions of pieces of evidence against Noah’s Flood and a young Earth, and that there are probably at least 100 categories of millions of pieces of evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

Thanks ;)

Next, I plan on responding to your rebuttals now that I can devote more time to this thread.

ABE - There is one other thing I would like to examine, namely your references. Will appear here as soon as things calm a bit at work and I obtain them via interlibrary loan.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Someone who cares, posted 02-15-2007 12:43 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Someone who cares, posted 03-29-2007 12:44 AM anglagard has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3162 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 96 of 100 (392066)
03-29-2007 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by anglagard
03-23-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Conclusion or "I'm Baaacccck"
"I now realize that there are at least 100 categories of millions of pieces of evidence against Noah’s Flood and a young Earth, and that there are probably at least 100 categories of millions of pieces of evidence for the Theory of Evolution."

Oh really... Well, let me at em'. Start the list, evidence # 1,2,3,4,...100000000.

...If you can... :)

I believe my essay did not provide such knowledge, and I believe that an open mind would have found that to the contrary, there is much evidence for the Flood, young earth, and against evolution.

I do not know how much time I'll be able to spend here, but when I get the time and will power, I will try to respond here.

Peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by anglagard, posted 03-23-2007 5:59 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by anglagard, posted 03-31-2007 12:13 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 97 of 100 (392406)
03-31-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Someone who cares
03-29-2007 12:44 AM


The 100 Categories
S1WC writes:

"I now realize that there are at least 100 categories of millions of pieces of evidence against Noah’s Flood and a young Earth, and that there are probably at least 100 categories of millions of pieces of evidence for the Theory of Evolution."

Oh really... Well, let me at em'. Start the list, evidence # 1,2,3,4,...100000000.

...If you can...

I believe my essay did not provide such knowledge, and I believe that an open mind would have found that to the contrary, there is much evidence for the Flood, young earth, and against evolution.

The location of the list is Message 2.

Please do not respond to this list in that thread as per admin rules. Rather, should you find the time and desire, pick one category and create a new thread, then we can discuss any subcategories.

I should have been more precise about what I meant. It was not the essay, but rather the research involved with the rebuttal that helped provide the inspiration for this list.

The reason I mentioned this is for purposes of clarification and for any potential references I may make to the list in this thread in the future.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Someone who cares, posted 03-29-2007 12:44 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Someone who cares, posted 04-26-2007 11:30 PM anglagard has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3162 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 98 of 100 (397636)
04-26-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by anglagard
03-31-2007 12:13 AM


RE:The 100 Categories
Hi, I'm back, well, for an afternoon anyway... I've been real busy lately.

I checked out that list of 100 categories, and I am not very impressed. :( I started reading the first couple and I could think up of a simple reply for each of them, and as for the more complex issues- I could research them and come up with a reply anyway because I've got the truth on my side, so I will always win. Many of your "categories" are more like "fragments" of flawed proofs or misconceptions. I could takle the list, but we would probably have to depart from this thread and make a new one specifically for the rebuttal of your list. (I see no one has dared to do this yet, so I guess I may be a candidate) Tell me what you think, we could use the same format as in this thread, one point for each "category" so as not to break any rules, and all of that would be in a Great Debate topic. (Once again, I do not want to debate anywhere but in a Great Debate) Tell me what you think, maybe we could work it out, because as for this thread, I have already backed out where I found out I was mistaken, the rest would just be back and forth useless debating, we would not get anywhere. By the looks of this thread, we're not doing much anyway, but a new subject would be interesting...

P.S. Do not be alarmed if it will take me another month to reply...
Hopefully it will be sooner, but I cannot tell for sure.

Peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by anglagard, posted 03-31-2007 12:13 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 04-28-2007 7:43 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 99 of 100 (397990)
04-28-2007 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Someone who cares
04-26-2007 11:30 PM


Re: RE:The 100 Categories
If you would like to have a great debate over the 100 categories I would be interested. It would require a new thread.

I wouldn't mind placing this thread on hiatus if you prefer the categories, but still have one last piece to comment on, namely the sources. Therefore, I believe it would be inappropriate to close this thread, but rather am OK to let it lie dormant for awhile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Someone who cares, posted 04-26-2007 11:30 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Someone who cares, posted 05-06-2007 12:28 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3162 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 100 of 100 (399497)
05-06-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by anglagard
04-28-2007 7:43 PM


Re: RE:The 100 Categories
Sure, we can start the new thread and when you get the information on the sources you can post and we can wrap up this debate while already starting the other one. I think it will be more interesting to debate on a new subject, esp. with all my newly gained knowledge from reading books. :) So if you would like, we can notify a moderator or administrator and tell them to start a new Great Debate thread with the first post being that one from your other thread, the "100 categories". Hope to getting it all started soon!

Peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 04-28-2007 7:43 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017