Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a Religious Issue
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 303 (183491)
02-06-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by satrekker
02-06-2005 9:12 AM


Define Faith Please
Before this goes on too long perhaps you should give your definition of faith. It is a near certainty that you are not using the same definition as some others. Unless that is cleared up it will degenerate into a match of "IS!", "IS NOT!", "IS".
I think you are trying to compare it to religious-faith. If so please elaborate if not clear that up for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by satrekker, posted 02-06-2005 9:12 AM satrekker has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 303 (183574)
02-06-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by satrekker
02-06-2005 4:22 PM


Yet another example
You are yet another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the creationist cults. You actually had the idea that you could pose questions that would be difficult to answer.
You have been fed misinformation and outright lies. When you find that it isn't as easy as you thought it would be you cut an run.
You are, of course, in good company. I'd guess a majority of the literalists visitors behave as you do. Not the best advertisement for your faith but that is your choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by satrekker, posted 02-06-2005 4:22 PM satrekker has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by CK, posted 02-06-2005 5:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 303 (183588)
02-06-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by satrekker
02-06-2005 5:53 PM


Sorry
Perhaps I jumped a bit quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by satrekker, posted 02-06-2005 5:53 PM satrekker has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 303 (185151)
02-14-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jordo86
02-14-2005 10:45 AM


Similar arguments
You are correct in that similar arguments can be used. The point is that the old "were you there" argument is not meaningful.
That is the point the Schraf was making.
The next issue is are we making good use of the available information and drawing logical conclusions from it.
In both the examples given we can, with a lot of good reasons, conclude that indeed someone did it. We know that these are the kinds of things known "someones" do and we can even find "someones" who do those kind of thing.
That is no use to a creationist argument when they don't have evidence of the someone and the other side has evidence that the things being pointed to can arise without any someone being involved at all.
Again, you missed the point that was being discussed. It seems however that you agree with Schraf on that point.
It is just that the "were you there" argument is so obviously stupid that it is a surprise that people would actually bring it up.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2005 13:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jordo86, posted 02-14-2005 10:45 AM Jordo86 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 36 of 303 (185249)
02-14-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by sog345
02-14-2005 5:40 PM


More details please
There is still no evidence for Evolution to this point. I have seen none provided here or anywhere else.
Did you read post 34? Just exactly what is wrong with what was given there as evidence?
Just saying you've seen none when someone thought they were giving you some without you explaining why you don't think it is might lead us to believe you are blind to it. Care to show that you have actually considered what you have been shown?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2005 17:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sog345, posted 02-14-2005 5:40 PM sog345 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 110 of 303 (212191)
05-28-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mick
05-28-2005 8:49 PM


Re: even YEC believe in "evolution"
The idea of a common ancestor for all life is just a consequence of the theory, and it seems reasonable, given what we know about biology.
No, it is not a consequence of the ToE at all. If it is true of all extant life on earth then that is just a happenstance of the unfolding of life's developement.\
In "The Origin of Species" Darwin referst to life being breathed into one or a few....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mick, posted 05-28-2005 8:49 PM mick has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 162 of 303 (212548)
05-30-2005 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by randman
05-30-2005 12:20 AM


Evolution and Common Descent
I like the way one evolutionist said it. Evolution is a fact, and went on to explain how speciation is a fact, but typically, and you cannot deny this is what evolutionists do, he was really saying common descent is a fact.
You can't have it both ways. It's propaganda. Frankly, I don't even care if common descent is true. But to go around and use, in educational materials, the term "evolution" to refer both to speciation and common descent and then to say common descent but use the term "evolution" is true because lookee here, we see speciation is propaganda, and that's what evolutionists rely on.
I'm confused as to what your point is.
If evolution results in speciation then we have more than one species with a common ancestor. Thus speciation and common descent go hand in hand. What is the problem exactly?
I don't understand your seeing speciation as propaganda. Most creationist organization have accepted speciation and even higher levels of taxonomic splitting (that is wider common descent). Could you explain what you mean?
The descent with modification part I don't understand either. It actually does appear that you are saying that speciation doesn't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 12:20 AM randman has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 163 of 303 (212549)
05-30-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by randman
05-30-2005 1:08 AM


Separate issues
The dishonesty is the use of the term "evolution" as synonymous with "common descent" taken asmeaning all of life evolving from a common ancestor. Evolution is a proposed mechanism for the theory of universal common descent. It is not equivalent to the theory of universal common descent.
Of course, you are right that they are separate. We could very well have evolution of several separate lines going back to multiple ancestors.
However, calling this "dishonest" is a silly over statmentn. Since ALL the evidence suggests that we have only one surviving line of descent being a bit careless in the terms and mixing the two is only careless not dishonest.
In searching back I seem to see that you are not talking about universal common descent but against any commonality of descent even at the species level. Could you clarify?
As for the inclusion of ID. It may well be that this all got kicked off by a designer, it may also be that it was designed to evolve by the mechanisms that we have come to understand. That is the view of the majority of Christians.
Are you arguing something different from them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 1:08 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by randman, posted 05-30-2005 2:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 232 of 303 (213329)
06-01-2005 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by J. Davis
06-01-2005 9:59 AM


Niches
I still think a monkey wouldn't leave it's tree/niche.
Well, animals do. And what if the niche left the 'monkey'? Then what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by J. Davis, posted 06-01-2005 9:59 AM J. Davis has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 264 of 303 (213933)
06-03-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by randman
06-02-2005 11:24 PM


Kinds Share DNA
You flat our claim that just because people reproduce after their kind, producing offspring that share traits and DNA, that this is proof of common descent of all living things from a single original life form.
So "kinds" share DNA and traits. Since all life examined so far shares DNA patterns and the traits that go with them the conclusion is that these are all one "kind". One kind that may have been specially created or not, but one kind none-the-less.
Sorry, but I am not setting the bar that high. You have just set it so low that one could deduce from the mere fact of reproduction that universal common descent must be true.
This is, of course, not at all true. In fact, it is a ridiculous expression of the actual situation. I suggest that you currently know too little to make any progress in understanding the situation and are demonstrating an unwillingness to consider anything which you might have trouble explaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by randman, posted 06-02-2005 11:24 PM randman has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 298 of 303 (214052)
06-03-2005 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by randman
06-03-2005 9:48 PM


genetic and physical similarity
I would suppose we would compare genetic studies of different creatures, and set of creatures, to verify genetic similarity corresponds with physical similarity, correct?
Exactly! This is underway and has been done for rather a lot of animals (but only partial genome sequences). The physical similarities fit well AND the degree of difference in some parts match up to the fossil determined dates that were determined well before the DNA was examined.
In addtion, some discrepancies (whales for example) had the DNA saying one thing and bones suggesting something else. Then additional fossils were found which fit the DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 9:48 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 10:19 PM NosyNed 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