|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: questions evolutionists can't or won't answer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
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.
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: 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!
------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
--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’.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"--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'? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
"--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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Could you rephrase that in English and with some specifics to back it up? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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? -----------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: That it could originate from non-life has a lot oftheory 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 peptidecreation around thermal vents, etc. etc. all lend credence to the possibility of abiogenesis. If we can figure out the conditions under which it could happenand re-produce those conditions we can test the idea, until then we need to keep looking. quote: Get the right starting conditions, allow the right amountof time and energy, and see if life pops out If we one day do that will it disprove the existence of God ?
quote: That life originated by unnatural process ... can you think ofany other answer to that question ? That's the only alternative that could possibly exist in thiscontext. 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: By definition ... science deals with the explanation ofnatural phenomena ... if it ain't natural it falls outside the remit of science. Conversely if it can be illuminated by science ... it immediatelyfalls into the category of natural phenomena. quote: You just answered yourself ... if one theory ends, then anotherbegins, that makes them separate theories!!! Abiogenesis are a theories about how the first life came intobeing through natural processes. Evolution does pick up the story ... but from the point of theefirst life existsing EVEN if that life were spoken into being by some supernatural agency. CAN YOU provide objective evidence for God-powered genesis ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024