Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
27 online now:
caffeine, candle2, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 21 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,938 Year: 20,974/19,786 Month: 1,371/2,023 Week: 322/557 Day: 15/47 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
mark24
Member (Idle past 3517 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 141 (10370)
05-25-2002 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by degreed
05-25-2002 3:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:

Where did you observe speciation through purely natural selection, and can i see it too?


Percy beat me to it, but this comment wasn't addressed. Why do you need to see speciation through natural selection, particularly? As opposed to genetic drift, peak shift, ecological selection, sexual selection, polyploidy, etc.?

Just curious as to why you're placing such emphasis on speciation by ns.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 3:59 PM degreed has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 141 (10371)
05-25-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by degreed
05-25-2002 2:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by degreed:
[b]Isn't it a little tough to say that science will cease to exist if we allow ourselves to believe that a supernatural being had a hand in all of this?[/QUOTE]

There is a reason the supernatural was eventually expunged from scientific methodology.

As Joe said, if science can ever simply say that "Godidit", then scientific inquiry is stopped cold.

It explains everything, so it explains nothing.

quote:
We should continue to pursue the how and to test what we think we know.

Except that there is no reason to continue to explore past "Godidit", isn't there?

quote:
Attributing creation does not preclude science.

It does if you think that one can scientifically provide evidence for God.

OTOH, I know many good scientists who belive in God; more so as they tease out some mysterious natural mechanism. But they would never think that scientific evidence for God exists.

quote:
Even if we were to all agree on creation, the Creator obviously used extremely precise and constant laws of physics and nature to define the universe. The science lies in continuing to further our understanding of these laws.

This is fine with me, but science, by definition, does not address the supernatural. If someone wants to conclude that God exists because of the nature of, well, nature, that's great. They have left science at this point, however.

quote:
Rather than outright denial or acceptance of a supernatural creator, we should continue to advance scientific progress.

Like I sais, science ignores the supernatural, but otherwise I agree.

quote:
However, in the vein of proving or falsifying God, as you put it, years and years of science should eventually point us in one direction or the other.

Nope, wrong. Science ignores the supernatural entirely. What people take away from scientific matters regarding the supernatural is their own philosophical thing.

quote:
For instance - here's a basic evolutionary flaw that evolutionists don't really like to talk about.

Let's assume that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming, that the combination of the measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, and nucleochronology techniques combine to date the universe from 11 to 20 billion years old, right?

One of my Favorite Flaws
--Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).


UM, where on earth do you get this probability mumbo jumbo?? Let's see this mathematical model, please.

quote:
Just because we see a cute collection of fossils doesn't mean that we can make the huge leap over clear chaos and probability theory chasms to say that they must have evolved into each other.
Shouldn't we discuss why, in the recorded span of human history, we have never witnessed even one single example of speciation through evolution? Only extinctions...

Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the field.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century.
Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

(Aside: Creationists always forget about plant speciation!)

Methinks you need to do a bit more study of the ToE. What you don't know, and what you think you know but are wrong about, is a lot.

[QUOTE]See? The objective data should lead us somewhere. In the case of the fossil record we've accumulated in the last century, i think it does.[/b]


Sure does.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by degreed, posted 05-25-2002 2:54 PM degreed has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 141 (10372)
05-25-2002 10:21 PM


I must ask some of the Creationists here to quite persisting in acquainting any intelligent board such a this with Hovind, Brown, and some Wyatt material. It is comparably annoying to me as a Creationist as the question of why there are no transitionals or why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them to the Evo. There is a more logical, as well as a more intelligible way of addressing the History of the Earth as well as every other scientific study.

------------------


Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-25-2002 11:00 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 19 of 141 (10373)
05-25-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by TrueCreation
05-25-2002 10:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I must ask some of the Creationists here to quite persisting in acquainting any intelligent board such a this with Hovind, Brown, and some Wyatt material. It is comparably annoying to me as a Creationist as the question of why there are no transitionals or why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them to the Evo. There is a more logical, as well as a more intelligible way of addressing the History of the Earth as well as every other scientific study.


TC, is this because of that Hovind mp3 file link I relayed?

Might I sense that you are making the transition from YEC to OEC?

Let's hear you say good things about uniformitarianism now!

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 05-25-2002 10:21 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 05-25-2002 11:10 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 141 (10374)
05-25-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Minnemooseus
05-25-2002 11:00 PM


"TC, is this because of that Hovind mp3 file link I relayed?"
--Naw, I just thought it was common sense to any sane person who ever listened to a Hovind recording. Or someone who might have a keen ear to semantics arguments and just plain idiocy.

"Might I sense that you are making the transition from YEC to OEC?"
--Well how much do I sense that you wish this were so. Off the scale I suppose. If I were dependent on the validity of Hovinds arguments, you might just say my corpse of credibility has now rotted and the remnants fossilized.

"Let's hear you say good things about uniformitarianism now!"
--Uniformitarianism, well, dunno, we would have to be specific as always.

--Hovinds material is the equivalent of...well you know what, I'll just be vague/nice and say he's beyond comparison

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-25-2002 11:00 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 3044 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 21 of 141 (10385)
05-26-2002 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by TrueCreation
05-25-2002 11:10 PM


--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein… who?

--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view).

--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE. Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality.

--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones.

--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC.

--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe. The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data. ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question.

--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right? The ToM has failed to demonstrate ANY significant beneficial mutation (for a reproductively ongoing population), even by gene splicing. And what about the ka-zillions of such incredible mutations necessary to form a viable organism, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo.

--I humbly request anyone: Dr. Taz, Gene, Moose, Darwin_T, Shraf, Percy, TC, and/or others to debate any of the above statements. Please pardon any and all ‘wrong’ statements, discrepancies, etc., as I, too, have been self-deceived by numerous multi-tiered and unchecked biases’.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 05-25-2002 11:10 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 05-26-2002 11:27 PM Philip has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-27-2002 12:54 AM Philip has not yet responded
 Message 28 by nator, posted 05-27-2002 9:18 AM Philip has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 141 (10386)
05-26-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Philip
05-26-2002 10:08 PM


"--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein… who?"
--Don't think anyone has, seeing that to imply what mechanics are to be applied on an above natural phenomena can reasonably be inferred as arbitrary.

"--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view)."
--However, this 'lofty inquiry', should be seen as such. Subjective.

"--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE."
--I think it is quite irrational to say this applies to me, simply because this mind-set is not present in my line of thinking.

"Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality."
--I agree.

"--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones."
--Technically as your assertion implies, may be incorrect. However, as what your statement might reveal if it were expanded on, I can agree.

"--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC."
--?

"--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe. The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data. ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question."
--And it is this subjective nature which admits its lack of tenability.

"--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo."
--What is your definition along with potential falsification of your 'ToM'?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM Philip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:12 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4001 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 23 of 141 (10388)
05-27-2002 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by TrueCreation
05-26-2002 11:27 PM


"--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones."

JM: Oh really? How so?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 05-26-2002 11:27 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 05-27-2002 12:49 AM Joe Meert has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 141 (10389)
05-27-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Joe Meert
05-27-2002 12:12 AM


"JM: Oh really? How so?"
--I think that he is attempting to imply that because of inconsistancies and the mobility of radioisotopes as well as other factors, radiometrics are invalid. Of course however, as I stated earlier, I would disagree with this assertion if it were not expanded on. That is, if a little more specifics and detail were not taken into consideration. Though I would agree as to where this assertion is going.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:12 AM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:58 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 25 of 141 (10390)
05-27-2002 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Philip
05-26-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein… who?

To me it seems that the phrase "nature of the supernatural" is an oxymoron. What is the nature of something outside of nature? I guess, however, anyone is welcome to try to pull the "supernatural" into being part of the "natural". Have you a proposal on how one would find scientific evidence of God's existance?

quote:
--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view).
--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE. Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality.

I don't really know what to make of this. I looked up both "biased" and "vindication" in Websters; I still don't know what a "biased vindication" is. Seemingly, you are taking offense at scientific study building on the results of previous solid scientific study.

quote:
--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones.
--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC.

Please define what a "solar clock" is. What are the "temporal inconsistencies" that are found in the geologic column? Are you heading for that Humphries (sp?) concept of the earth having been at or behind the event horizon of some massive object?

quote:
--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe. The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data. ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question.
--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right? The ToM has failed to demonstrate ANY significant beneficial mutation (for a reproductively ongoing population), even by gene splicing. And what about the ka-zillions of such incredible mutations necessary to form a viable organism, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo.

I don't wish to get into ID, other than to note that it is (as I understand it) an OEC mechanism. To me, Behe's variety of ID is 99.99% evolution, with a little tweeking by God. In general, I stay clear of the biology; my mind is strained enough just sticking to geology. As for Haitian Voodoo, I believe there is some scientific reality behind it. Are not the "zombies" persons who have been drugged into a deep coma, which mimics death?

quote:
--I humbly request anyone: Dr. Taz, Gene, Moose, Darwin_T, Shraf, Percy, TC, and/or others to debate any of the above statements. Please pardon any and all ‘wrong’ statements, discrepancies, etc., as I, too, have been self-deceived by numerous multi-tiered and unchecked biases’.

Well, I took my little stab at it.

Best regards,
Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4001 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 26 of 141 (10391)
05-27-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TrueCreation
05-27-2002 12:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: Oh really? How so?"
--I think that he is attempting to imply that because of inconsistancies and the mobility of radioisotopes as well as other factors, radiometrics are invalid. Of course however, as I stated earlier, I would disagree with this assertion if it were not expanded on. That is, if a little more specifics and detail were not taken into consideration. Though I would agree as to where this assertion is going.


JM: Could you rephrase that in English and with some specifics to back it up?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 05-27-2002 12:49 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 05-27-2002 3:03 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 141 (10393)
05-27-2002 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Joe Meert
05-27-2002 12:58 AM


"JM: Could you rephrase that in English and with some specifics to back it up?"
--Sorry, I hope you got the idea, I was trying to concentrate on finishing up my last bit of research for another post as well as it is getting late. I will read over my new posts to make sure they make more sense. And specific examples to back it up may be something along the lines of Zircon inheritance, errorchrons (apparent isochrons which are shown to be geologically meaningless), the Open-system Behavior of U-Th-Pb dating in Whole-Rock dating, Pb Loss in mineral dating, interesting patterns in mineral U-Th-Pb Ages, etc. Would you like to pick one which sounds interesting for more detail, or was this what you were looking for? Maybe another dating method?

-----------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:58 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 141 (10406)
05-27-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Philip
05-26-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
[b]--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein… who?[/QUOTE]

To be scientific, a theory must;

1)Provide positive evidence
2)Provide testable hypothese
3)Be falsifiable

These tenets were adopted as the scientific method was formalized and refined. The reason these tenets were ever adopted is that they produce the most reliable, accurate results.

Read more about the nature of scientific inquiry here:

http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

I didn't say that Creationists couldn't use science. (Believe me, I wish they would) I am saying that they don't.

quote:
--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view).

Uh, sure. Do you have a point?

quote:
--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE.

You have it backwards! Science isn't limited to the ToE, but the ToE, along with any other theory claiming to be scientific, is limited to the rules of science.

quote:
Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality.

I don't have any idea where you get the notion that I think science is closed to anyone.

I am saying that Creation 'science' bears only a surface resemblence to real science with it's use of scientific terminology and such, and is actually based upon dogmatic religion and an unbending interpretation of it's holy book. I am saying that Creationists will never allow their "theories" to be falsified if it means that they will have to consider the Bible wrong in any way, so, by definition, Creation 'science' isn't science.

quote:
--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones.

This is merely handwaving. I have no reason to believe you unless you provide some specific evidence.

quote:
--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC.

Evidence, please, of what you are claiming.

quote:
--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe.

No, ID cannot be inferred scientifically. ID can only be inferred philosophically or religiously.

How do you tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a naturalistic system that we don't understand??

quote:
The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data.

Yes, one might "always" infer ID if one wishes to, but it won't be a scientific inference. It will be a philosophical one.

Gee, all this talk about an inference "always" happening. This doesn't sound very much like scientific tentativity, or that you would ever be willing to accept any evidence which contradicted your theory. This sounds very much like dogmatic religious doctrine.

quote:
ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question.

Nope, wrong, sorry.

quote:
--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right?

I am sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have no idea what this "theory of mutation" you are on about is. Did you make it up?

quote:
The ToM has failed to demonstrate ANY significant beneficial mutation (for a reproductively ongoing population), even by gene splicing.

(I'll play along for a moment, even though I have no idea what this ToM is supposed to be)

So, do you consider complete or partial immunity to HIV to not be a significant beneficial mutation in an ongoing population?

Oh, can you please defing "significant beneficial mutation"?

quote:
And what about the ka-zillions of such incredible mutations necessary to form a viable organism, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo.

Riiiiight.

What exactly is the ToM, dear?

[QUOTE]--I humbly request anyone: Dr. Taz, Gene, Moose, Darwin_T, Shraf, Percy, TC, and/or others to debate any of the above statements. Please pardon any and all ‘wrong’ statements, discrepancies, etc., as I, too, have been self-deceived by numerous multi-tiered and unchecked biases’.[/B]


See, I don't really think you can be pardoned for "wrong" statements, because they are borne from willful ignorance. You could learn this stuff if you wanted to have an unbiased outlook. You choose not to.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2245 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 29 of 141 (10409)
05-27-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
05-24-2002 2:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.

Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?


That it could originate from non-life has a lot of
theory and evidence to support it. There's a better living
through chemistry thread that puts much current thinking forward.

Things like self replicating ability of RNA, long chain peptide
creation around thermal vents, etc. etc. all lend credence to
the possibility of abiogenesis.

If we can figure out the conditions under which it could happen
and re-produce those conditions we can test the idea, until then
we need to keep looking.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

Get the right starting conditions, allow the right amount
of time and energy, and see if life pops out

If we one day do that will it disprove the existence of God ?

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

That life originated by unnatural process ... can you think of
any other answer to that question ?

That's the only alternative that could possibly exist in this
context. Either life came about through natural processes or
it didn't ... that's kind of the whole point of the discussion
isn't it ?

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

By definition ... science deals with the explanation of
natural phenomena ... if it ain't natural it falls outside
the remit of science.

Conversely if it can be illuminated by science ... it immediately
falls into the category of natural phenomena.

quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)

You just answered yourself ... if one theory ends, then another
begins, that makes them separate theories!!!

Abiogenesis are a theories about how the first life came into
being through natural processes.

Evolution does pick up the story ... but from the point of thee
first life existsing EVEN if that life were spoken into being
by some supernatural agency.

CAN YOU provide objective evidence for God-powered genesis ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 2:00 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 141 (10437)
05-27-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
05-24-2002 5:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
(Yawn) You mean, again? We've been through all of this before JP.

John Paul: (sigh, shrug)
Thanks for your typical non-response edge. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. This has been explained to you on several occasions yet you refuse to listen. Oh well. And yes there is a huge difference between saying evolution and saying the theory of evolution. You just don't understand the difference because you are quite happy blurring the distinction. By doing so it makes it appear tha Creationists don't agree that things change. Creationists since the time of Carolus Linneaus (Karl von Linne, 1701-1778) knew that the species were not fixed (and therefore not indicative of the originally Created Kind). IOW, Creationists knew of speciation over 200 years ago.

The grand sweep of the theory of evolution can't be objectively tested and it can't be verified. Its theoretical musings add nothing to the advance of science.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 05-24-2002 5:51 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Philip, posted 05-28-2002 1:17 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019