Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 211 of 305 (431970)
11-03-2007 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
10-23-2007 9:36 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
I fully agree that facts transcend belief, when there is a controversy or discrepency what is believed. The factor of 'truth' rests on facts, not belief: one cannot 'believe' the sun did not rise yesterday or that it won't rise tomorrow.
It is also a fact, that evolution is not a fact but a theory, with less facts to support it than any belief system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2007 9:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by bluescat48, posted 11-03-2007 12:49 PM IamJoseph has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 212 of 305 (431971)
11-03-2007 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 6:17 AM


Re: A GUIDE FOR THE GULLIBLE - OR WORSE!
Not so - the reverse applies. Creationists have been following another science, which says the 'seed' [an outgrowth from the host parentage] is responsible for all transmissions of a life form, including heriditary and immediate skeletal and characterestics imprints: ignored by evolutionists altogether.
The fact of evidence for evolution of this factor is thus, and only this:
That it can conduct what is concluded, in the absence of the 'seed' factor.
Reductionist analogy: if you want to assert your car was not made by a car maker, then you have to produce cars w/o car makers.
So in your opinion, evolutionists don't take into consideration the facts of reproduction? That, in essence, they don't know how babies are made? That they ignore embryology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 6:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 10:18 AM Modulous has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 213 of 305 (431982)
11-03-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Modulous
11-03-2007 6:40 AM


Re: A GUIDE FOR THE GULLIBLE - OR WORSE!
You altogether missed my point. The issue of repro was clearly disregarded in the post I responded to, and I sited it in allignment what is required to evidence evolutionary speciation.
If specie transfers occur by factors other than seed fostered repro - then evidence it w/o it; if seed repro is only a partial factor - then site what part of the partial does not belong to the seed, and explain why the partial factor is not represented in all positations made by evolutionists.
Also, the notion that creationists do not factor science, facts and empirical determinations is wholly false: there is ample evidence of the seed factor in our midst - w/o resorting to elusive and diabolical casino science; this is compounded by the 'FACT' there is no alternative science to Creationism.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 6:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 12:07 PM IamJoseph has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 305 (431991)
11-03-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 6:17 AM


A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
I don't think so.
What you think is totally irrelevant to what the facts show.
That they may not be representative of all organasms, means something other than the conclusion derived by Parker.
Only if you can show other valid conclusions not just make assertions. In any event this assertion alone does not invalidate the fact that the forams do show evolution, nor that evolution itself is wrong, as there are several mechanisms through which evolution occurs.
More probably, than equally, it can mean that the resemblences seen are commonplace and pervasive within life forms [humans resemble a host of other animals and birds in expressionisms and body functions];...
False. Taking this position to it's logical conclusion, then your resemblance to your parents is purely coincidental and you could just as likely have come out a giraffe or a gerbil instead of the person you are. This concept would then lead to the logical conclusion that there should be many instances of people giving birth to giraffes and gerbils if it were true. Seeing as there are no records in all the history known of people giving birth to giraffes and gerbils, nor or any individual organisms behaving in an analogous manner, this concept is falsified. This leads to the conclusion that there is a direct relationship between the organism and the parent(s) of the organism that causes these resemblances through hereditary traits rather than pure coincidence.
This is true across the board -- every species known is related by hereditary traits that are passed from generation to generation causing resemblance of organisms to parent(s) and hence to grandparents etc, with such changes as occur generally causing more visible change over more generations.
... that one life form may protrude an extension in a manner which resembles another life form's elsewhere without any direct linkage [both fish and humans have eyes]; ...
False again. Convergent evolution of wings in birds and bats does not falsify evolution because the wings are different. The similarity of fish eyes to human eyes is not surprising given that they each evolved from a common ancestor with eyes - there is a direct linkage. The difference between human eyes and the eyes of bugs or mollusks is due to evolving from a common ancestor that did not have eyes. The patterns of features in organisms is consistent with a nested hierarchy of relationships through common ancestors, and not through arbitrary sprouting of features without any direct linkage
... or that a life form may be graduating only to adapt its own environs, and thus utilises a feature seen elsewhere in another life form [humans copy traits of other life forms to develop cars and planes].
But in no cases are whole features adopted from one species into another across hereditary lines rather than along them. The octopus eye is not suddenly transferred to a mammal organism, nor are the features of an octopus eye incorporated into the eyes of mammals. Humans on the other hand take designed features from one product and incorporate them or aspects of them into other design without going through the process of development all over again. Rear windshield wipers suddenly appear on all models and brands of hatchbacks, vans and SUV's after they were introduced in one model of one brand. Electronics across the board have gone from tubes to circuit boards. All refrigerators, air conditioners and the like, have all changed refrigerant used at the same time.
There is no relationship between design as used by humans and what we see in nature, no borrowing of already developed design into totally unrelated objects.
The above anomolies subsist even when the alledged linkages are definitely in the non-absolute and highly exaggerated and elusive category.
Which you will never define nor substantiate in any way, making your argument one from fantasy, especially as it is made in denial of evidence to the contrary.
Nothing of the sort has in fact occured, nor do we have any 'evidences' whatsoever - even with the retreat to the million years and fossils escapism: when did this prowess cease occuring and why is it not seen today?
It has occurred and it still happens every day in fact, as noted above, in all living species. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away.
If it has not ceased and was/is a continual process, then the time factor does not impact. IOW, it would be evidenced last and next friday, and the period gaps would not hinder: that is what a 'continueing process' means. Naturally occuring oxygen production is a continueing process.
As is evolution in every generation in every species.
Mathematically, if blue marbles turn to red marbles every 10 days, continually, then we will always see this process in action - even after millions of years. The time factor has no impact in a 'continueing process'; Parker adopted slight of hand casino science here.
And yet, unsurprisingly, the evidence as shown by Parker still shows that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred. Your comment does not change that fact, nor the fact that evolution is still an ongoing process. Denial and hand-waving, calling something "casino science" does not refute the facts nor the conclusions reached from the facts. You need to actually demonstrate that the conclusions are false rather than just make assertions.
The premise that the elevation was not altogether direct and linear upto the present time, or that there were uneven twists and turns how the transit elevations [better, destruction] occured - also does not hinder continueing evidence today of a past millions of years away: these would still be evident - everywhere one looks - without exception - based on the same 'continueing process' premise.
Your continued use of convoluted sentence structure and irrelevant words does not hide the fact that evolution does occur, is occurring and has occurred, that the evidence of evolution over millions of years is in fact there to be observed, for anyone.
Not so - the reverse applies. Creationists have been following another science, which says the 'seed' [an outgrowth from the host parentage] is responsible for all transmissions of a life form, including heriditary and immediate skeletal and characterestics imprints: ignored by evolutionists altogether.
Sorry, you mean another definition of science, one that considers fantasy as fact and one that does not need to define itself nor make theories based on evidence or testable predictions. Your "seed" is just as un-defined and un-demonstrated as was your concept of "speech" -- and it is just as irrelevant until you provide some definition whereby its existence can be tested. Just as you have consistently failed to show that human speech has any qualitative difference from speech - the verbal communication of thoughts and feeling - in other animals, you have failed to show there is any qualitative or even quantitative difference between your "seed" and DNA inherited from parent organism(s) from generation to generation. Without any such differentiation you cannot say there is a difference between your alleged system and the process of evolution as we know exists and operates in all species today.
The fact of evidence for evolution of this factor is thus, and only this:
That it can conduct what is concluded, in the absence of the 'seed' factor.
More meaningless babble without definition of "seed" in a way that can be tested and validated. The only purpose of such babble is to appear to say something and hide the denial of reality behind a wall of delusion.
Reductionist analogy: if you want to assert your car was not made by a car maker, then you have to produce cars w/o car makers.
No evolutionist so asserts, for this is also just another false analogy. Cars do not reproduce to make other cars, while biological organisms do, so they cannot be compared. With no change in design factories will turn out cars of the same model until they run out of material, and with no intentional change in production processes they will all be the same color and have the same options; accidents that occur from time to time will not be passed on to future cars. In biology today, every day, we see the production of every single living organism from parent stock, complete with hereditary traits that can be passed on to future generations and mutations that show changes from the parent stock: with no additional design or manufacturing input necessary, every generation - and every individual - is different from the previous generation.
Message 211
It is also a fact, that evolution is not a fact but a theory, with less facts to support it than any belief system.
It is also a fact that the facts of evolution in fact show for a fact that you don't understand the facts of evolution.
Fact: evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- occurs in every species alive today.
Fact: the fossil and other records of the natural history of life on earth shows change after change with no two individuals being the same. When arranged in time they show a gradual development from ancient life forms to the ones we know today in a pattern that is totally consistent with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- and the branching of life forms from common ancestors by speciation.
I fully agree that facts transcend belief, when there is a controversy or discrepency what is believed. The factor of 'truth' rests on facts, not belief: one cannot 'believe' the sun did not rise yesterday or that it won't rise tomorrow.
Nor can one believe that evolution does not occur, nor that life on earth is 3.5 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Nor can one believe that there is something in human speech that is qualitatively different from speech in other animals, nor that there is some undefined "seed" that carries something not part of DNA that controls the growth and development of organisms in specific and life in general. This is especially true as all possible sources for "seed" material except hereditary DNA have been invalidated by scientific studies.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 6:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 3:47 PM RAZD has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 215 of 305 (431998)
11-03-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 10:18 AM


Re: A GUIDE FOR THE GULLIBLE - OR WORSE!
The issue of repro was clearly disregarded in the post I responded to
Nor was it relevant. When discussing embryology or specific counts of hereditary, not talking about this 'seed' you mention would be disregarding it. Simply assuming that everybody knows about this basic obvious stuff when talking about something else entirely is different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 10:18 AM IamJoseph has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 216 of 305 (432011)
11-03-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 6:32 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
It is also a fact, that evolution is not a fact but a theory, with less facts to support it than any belief system.
If that is so then show me the facts to support creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 6:32 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 3:59 PM bluescat48 has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 217 of 305 (432079)
11-03-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
11-03-2007 11:14 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
quote:
Only if you can show other valid conclusions not just make assertions. In any event this assertion alone does not invalidate the fact that the forams do show evolution, nor that evolution itself is wrong, as there are several mechanisms through which evolution occurs.
Several, does not mean what you select. I gave you one check list.
quote:
More probably, than equally, it can mean that the resemblences seen are commonplace and pervasive within life forms [humans resemble a host of other animals and birds in expressionisms and body functions];...
False. Taking this position to it's logical conclusion, then your resemblance to your parents is purely coincidental and you could just as likely have come out a giraffe or a gerbil instead of the person you are.
Not so: while an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence - this is hardly the case with evolutionary imprints - so the response is based on diabolical premises. An offspring is not negatable how it is derived. I call it casino science.
quote:
This is true across the board -- every species known is related by hereditary traits that are passed from generation to generation causing resemblance of organisms to parent(s) and hence to grandparents etc, with such changes as occur generally causing more visible change over more generations.
There is no hereditary linkage in evolution, which is based on subjective perception only, while there is absolute linkage with host parents. The fulcrum factor is, a miriad of other reasonings can apply in the evolutionary premise - but solely one applies with an immediate offspring. This applies to all your responsa, which appears in the same vein - the fulcrum non-virtual issues are replaced with imaginative, academic vitual specs. The equivalence is distorted and contrived.
quote:
False again. Convergent evolution of wings in birds and bats does not falsify evolution because the wings are different.
Of coz it can be falsified, and this is a prime area when it will be falsified. Any percieved differences can be due to several other factors, and this methodology is totally deficient in proving its conclusion. Humans fly planes - does it mean the tail-light of a plane spells evolution from birds to humans? No - because we can see where tail-lights come from, and we do not see them coming from birds per se. But the latter scenario can very easily be contrived by scientists - specially so when their conclusions are accepted by virtue of fcontrived reasonings, and no conclusive proof is demanded.
quote:
But in no cases are whole features adopted from one species into another across hereditary lines rather than along them.
LOL! Tell me about it - you don't want a situation requiring you to actually *PROVE* your premise as does the offspring from a seed!
quote:
The octopus eye is not suddenly transferred to a mammal organism, nor are the features of an octopus eye incorporated into the eyes of mammals.
Irrelevent - these are twists and turns to propel a certain perspective and view, which leads to a preferred conclusion - its anything to run far from nearing any actual proof. To get closer to understanding where it is poor casino science - you have to contemplate the reverse premise: what factors would enable a subset of an octopus eye to appear similar to a subset of another life form? Here, any reasonable imagination will pour out 100s of other factors. You want to select one of them, and make this your *PROOF* to an unrelated scenario, and thereby escape any further examination or deliberation.
quote:
There is no relationship between design as used by humans and what we see in nature, no borrowing of already developed design into totally unrelated objects.
Oh - even though you are argueing humans came from those who suddenly exhibit no similarity? The reverse appears more coherent: if a human can copy a bird to fly planes, then it is more probable a bird can copy an existential trait by his environmental life surrounds - even if this is done via instincts instead of human thought and speech. This is an example how you select what fits your premise only. After all, you are argueing that life forms graduate and speciate on the one principle: evolution, but a very selective and moody evolution?
quote:
It has occurred and it still happens every day in fact, as noted above, in all living species. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away.
Be assured, if it had occured, no one can deny it, and this debate is subsequent to its reverse factor only. You cannot deny the offspring via the seed - because it occurs every day, in all living species.
quote:
If it has not ceased and was/is a continual process, then the time factor does not impact. IOW, it would be evidenced last and next friday, and the period gaps would not hinder: that is what a 'continueing process' means. Naturally occuring oxygen production is a continueing process.
As is evolution in every generation in every species.
I won't ask what you mean by 'generation' - millions of years visavis nine months for a human! Re-evaluate what 'equitable comparison' means.
quote:
Mathematically, if blue marbles turn to red marbles every 10 days, continually, then we will always see this process in action - even after millions of years. The time factor has no impact in a 'continueing process'; Parker adopted slight of hand casino science here.
And yet, unsurprisingly, the evidence as shown by Parker still shows that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred. Your comment does not change that fact, nor the fact that evolution is still an ongoing process. Denial and hand-waving, calling something "casino science" does not refute the facts nor the conclusions reached from the facts. You need to actually demonstrate that the conclusions are false rather than just make assertions.
A re-evaluation is due here too - we seem to have different interpretations of the term 'ongoing process'. This applies to all transmissions every instant, not just a sub-set millions of years ago, or in populations. The seed transmission is an ongoing process!
quote:
Your continued use of convoluted sentence structure and irrelevant words does not hide the fact that evolution does occur, is occurring and has occurred, that the evidence of evolution over millions of years is in fact there to be observed, for anyone.
You say its a fact and observed; I see a miriad of other explanations to account for your conclusions, but none which equates with the seed factor.
quote:
Your "seed" is just as un-defined and un-demonstrated as was your concept of "speech" -- and it is just as irrelevant until you provide some definition whereby its existence can be tested. Just as you have consistently failed to show that human speech has any qualitative difference from speech - the verbal communication of thoughts and feeling - in other animals, you have failed to show there is any qualitative or even quantitative difference between your "seed" and DNA inherited from parent organism(s) from generation to generation. Without any such differentiation you cannot say there is a difference between your alleged system and the process of evolution as we know exists and operates in all species today.
There is no problems whatsoever with the premise of a seed: this is a direct and immediate outgrowth from the host parent, aka 'semen' and 'egg', which accounts for all offspring transmissions, including DNA and other micro and macro data. Nor did I fail in asserting speech being different in kind than degree: do you need reminding, that there is no proof of speech being prevailent in historical longevity periods - the excuse sited is there was no writings - as if a single 'name' of a human cannot be recalled without it as proof! Nor does a lack of knowing the exact definition reflect a failure in the differences with communication. If anything, the latter only affirms my position: it is precisely because there is a mystery here that the difference cannot be defined; this is not the case with communications of all other life forms, all of which possess the same mechanical organs and features, but display no speech: and you cannot define why this is so because it is a direct contradiction of evolution. The latter is understandable when you decide to examine evolution in terms of speech being different and unique: but there is a mental block here. Neo science is well on the way to becoming a religious science, where tresholds of dogmas cannot be breached.
quote:
The fact of evidence for evolution of this factor is thus, and only this:
That it can conduct what is concluded, in the absence of the 'seed' factor.
More meaningless babble without definition of "seed" in a way that can be tested and validated. The only purpose of such babble is to appear to say something and hide the denial of reality behind a wall of delusion.
More than bable, it is hitting the nail on the head! You cannot perform in the arena outside your selective criteria, and must run away from actual and definitive premise none can question. You should be able to prove your case in all scenarios.
quote:
Reductionist analogy: if you want to assert your car was not made by a car maker, then you have to produce cars w/o car makers.
No evolutionist so asserts, for this is also just another false analogy. Cars do not reproduce to make other cars, while biological organisms do, so they cannot be compared. With no change in design factories will turn out cars of the same model until they run out of material, and with no intentional change in production processes they will all be the same color and have the same options; accidents that occur from time to time will not be passed on to future cars. In biology today, every day, we see the production of every single living organism from parent stock, complete with hereditary traits that can be passed on to future generations and mutations that show changes from the parent stock: with no additional design or manufacturing input necessary, every generation - and every individual - is different from the previous generation.
I never said or inferred cars must reproduce cars - only that a subset [tail-lights] does not mean cars come from birds. The analogy is fine - you just cannot handle real proof demands - when it should be demanded with such pivotal issues.
quote:
Fact: evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- occurs in every species alive today.
No, it does not - the seed does this w/o a thing called evolution, while evolution cannot do this w/o a thing called the seed factor. That's a fact.
quote:
Fact: the fossil and other records of the natural history of life on earth shows change after change with no two individuals being the same. When arranged in time they show a gradual development from ancient life forms to the ones we know today in a pattern that is totally consistent with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- and the branching of life forms from common ancestors by speciation.
Its not the 'change' factor that is the issue, but what and how that change is derived. A human from africa will start to resemble a chinese in a few generations if his ancestors were transferred to china 500 years ago: this change is not in doubt, and while you allocate this to evolution, it is easier traced to parentage input via the seed over that time period. It confirms my premise - the seed is the impacting factor here. The same result is not forthcoming those 500 years with speciation: zebras won't emulate chinese people. I have already shown, the time factor of millions of years does not impact in an ongoing process either: iow, there is no reason why a zebra won't become a chinese by your criteria.
quote:
Nor can one believe that evolution does not occur, nor that life on earth is 3.5 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
No problem. Those factors are irrelevent here. I never said life did not exist millions of years ago.
quote:
Nor can one believe that there is something in human speech that is qualitatively different from speech in other animals,
Absolutely speech is different from non-speech communication, and is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of differences possible. The ratio is 1: all life forms.
quote:
nor that there is some undefined "seed" that carries something not part of DNA that controls the growth and development of organisms in specific and life in general. This is especially true as all possible sources for "seed" material except hereditary DNA have been invalidated by scientific studies.
Of course there is more than just dna in repro via the seed: it is everything, including skeletal and mental imprints, and bar none. It altogether makes evolution superfluous: you have not stated what a seed transmission lacks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2007 11:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2007 11:21 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 218 of 305 (432084)
11-03-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by bluescat48
11-03-2007 12:49 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
show me the facts to support creation.
There are un-ending facts here, and not a single contradiction. The reverse is the case with evolution: it does not and cannot prove itself as the originator of the universe and life, specially so when it relies wholly on an already existing entity, and then claims to be responsible for it!
Creationism makes assertions. If evolution is directed as its dis-proofing, then evolution has to prove itself, or else disprove creationism: this is not the case, and there is no other way of asserting a premise here. IOW, creationism cannot be disproved, nor can evolution prove its replacement factor. Until this situation changes, creationism stands undented, without it being emperically provable: because there is no empirical antithesis. The distorion of these facts and its logic and coherence, is a poor distortion of science. Resting on improvables is not the mark of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by bluescat48, posted 11-03-2007 12:49 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by nator, posted 11-03-2007 8:33 PM IamJoseph has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 219 of 305 (432116)
11-03-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 3:59 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
The ToE doesn't apply to the origin of life, nore the origin of the Universe.
The ToE doesn't apply until life first arrived on the scene.
Your argument is with Cosmology and Chemistry, not Biology.
So, what are the facts that support creation?
Start a list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 3:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 5:47 AM nator has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 220 of 305 (432141)
11-04-2007 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by nator
11-03-2007 8:33 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
The ToE doesn't apply to the origin of life, more the origin of the Universe.
The ToE doesn't apply until life first arrived on the scene.
Yes it does apply, and it is a false mindset which condones this lie. ToE does not start with life's origin because it is unable to - not because it does not want or intend to; but its doctrines clearly point to a nominated inference how life began. The rest of ToE addicts have no choice but to go where ToE's finger is pointing, like blind sheep, settling into perhaps the most unscientific debacle ever labeled as science: 'IT JUST HAPPENED' - how does that pass as science?
quote:
Your argument is with Cosmology and Chemistry, not Biology.
Another falsehood, designed to deflect and confound. The erroneous biology deflection is unavoidably connected to life and the universe [cosmology, chemistry]; one cannot subscribe to a biological premise of life, and play dumb blonde about life origins or universe origins. The naivety display is not credible here, and why not admits it boldly?
quote:
So, what are the facts that support creation?
Start a list.
Sure, and you start your own adjacently, instead of hiding behind false and contrived deflections?
LIST! There is no mystery or deflection here, and it is open to all minds to reflect and deliberate.
Absolutely I see both creationism and monotheism as scientific premises. This does not mean they have to align with any other scientific premises of the day - but that they are logic based, with a cause & effect, and a patterned sequence which includes the pivotal factors relevant to the universe origins. Here, creationism and monotheism are one scientific premise - which has been cast against a host of other prevailing scenarios - from divine pharaohs & emperors, head-bashing Hellenist deities, flat earth - to ToE. Today, the premise of creationism and monotheism is still debated in forums, while all other premises, all once equally held as fact and truth same as is ToE today, have all but vanished. And its reason has *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with the advent of science or ToE.
Now anyone talking universe origins [Creation], and requires a list, which hopefully the challenger will likewise produce his own, must start with what he regards as 1; first; primordial in the preamble - and it has to be in context and relevant to the universe origins. The first thing in genesis' creation, nominates the overall status of the universe being described, without which no other preamble can stand.
The List.
1. The first thing on the list is that the universe is 'FINITE' - it had a BEGINNING ['In the begging'].
This is stated as the first 'fact'. It applies only to the universe origins, the verse concluding in 'CREATED THE HEAVENS [GALAXIES] AND THE EARTH'. Yes/no? Your counter whether the uni is or is not finite!
2. The cause is given as by a Creator force, that at one time, nothing save for the creator existed [In the beginning Gd']. There is no proof or evidence given - which is fully credible, when it is contemplated. If we ever claim to find an equation or theory of a Creator, we can be assured we are wrong. How a car works does not substitute for the car maker: the car cannot know this factor. Nor does science know.
The above are indispensable background factors, and fully required contextually and scientifically, which genesis is supplying: but ToE does not. The texts now move on to a focus on the earth - again contextually correct, but what would be out of context without the background to earth: a blatant lacking in ToE, which starts in mid-point, and makes assumptions how it began by retrospective assumptions it never clarified, and without nominating any background to ToE. This is a blatant deficiency in ToE, and not satisfied that it does not say anything to its background. The cosmology/chemistry deflection is a joke, and a surprise it is not realized by evolutionists.
3. The next on the list is the perpetration of order in void. This is like the ingredients of a cake: each has to be prepared from the mush of the earth and made into formed and cultivated ingredients. Here, we can say there is the emergence of laws in the as yet lawless realm. When we discover some of these laws, we refer to them as scientific equations. 'Pi' would have come from this point, as it is a constant in the universe, independent of and precedent of life and science, and would fall into the preparatory phase of the universe structures. Science later acknowledged pi - but it did not create it; same with gravity and other science equations.
The next factor is that a Creator force performed the creation. This does not mean that anyone has to agree with it, to deem it logical or scientific; it remains nonetheless a scientific, sequenced and patterned premise, based on its context of creation of the universe, and stands so because there is no alternative or replacement to it.
3. Next, that NOTHING whatsoever can be known about the creator voluntarily. Proof or disproof does not apply here, and cause & effect remains its scientific premise. It is vindicated by what it says: no one can deny it and prove their denial, making it a sufficiently credible premise, and still within the boundary of logic and science: if something cannot be proven, it does not mean it is wrong or illogical; if it cannot be disproved - it remains a credible premise until disproved.
4. That the act of creating, namely its activation, was triggered by a word ['The Lrd *said* ], using the instrument of Light. This too is not an unscientific premise: all things we know of are derived by humans via the word, which represents thought/will/action; [will ] - exactly how a home builder builds a home. It is not unscientific that the universe before humans emerged was created by the word - when we know that humans do this with everything they created, including the wheel, the pyramids, cars, planes and pcs. First came the thought, then the blueprints, followed by the action. Nothing mythical or without vindication here.
There is some scientific variance whether light is a form of energy, and came later. Nonetheless, genesis is talking of a pre-sunlight [the texts], and is signifying a triggering factor. Light, which triggers life and energy on this planet, is a fine candidate for this declared purpose. The pre-sun light of genesis was pre-luminosity [the text], meaning it existed epochs before the sun, and what is being said here is - the sun could not produce light unless light pre-existed the stars. here, the stars could make light vision friendly to humans, by photonising it.
There is no scientific anomaly here, it is just another scientific premise, and one which predates the coining of the term.
5. The pattern and sequence order continues, with the critical factor of 'separation' of what was connected and enmeshed, e.g.: light and darkness were rendered separate entities, as with day/night, water/landmass, male/female. This separation factor is pivotal, else nothing could be differentiated, nor could life exist. This is referred to as 'the setting of the table for the guests' metaphor - meaning prior to the emergence of life on this planet, there is a preparatory facility. The metaphor of preparing the table, so to speak, is an indispensable factor - else life could not exist.
6. We see at this point, that genesis goes on to list all the life forms, after a background scenario, which includes light and separation factors of the elements. The chronological emergence of the life forms are 100% spot on, described in categories of their primary factors, namely these kinds of life form categories are: vegetation [all forms, including shrubs, herbs, etc]; water based kind [including bacteria and virus, referred to as 'swarms']; air borne kinds; land based kind [including mammals and all creeping things and insects]; human kind as the final species. The last kind is differentiated by speech, which poses a stumbling block potential for ToE.
Included in Genesis' creation chapter are premises which again cannot be disputed, but can pose answers to life origins. This includes that all life began as dual-gendered in their first appearance, and that each life form is equipped to reproduce its own kind - requiring no outside assistance, and to continue the life cycle of that kind.
The above is an unofficial, ad hock listing of genesis' creation chapter. It culminates in a rest day on the 7th day [meaning 'creation', not the Creator, was rested/ceased]. This turns the subject to humanity, after the background of where the universe, the earth and life come from - because the rest of the books are directed at humanity. Its a scientifically based document, with genesis containing the world's oldest and most accurate calendar, based on the solar, lunar and earth movements - the only one able to forecast seseasonal patterns [a scientific doc], and when examined properly - that there is no other reading of it than that the earth is a moving sphere [its a scientific doc]. It was medieval Europe, with its Hellenist incline, which made the earth being described as anything but flat - as a charge of heresy, with a mandated death penalty.
Is Genesis science? Where did science come from!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by nator, posted 11-03-2007 8:33 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by nator, posted 11-04-2007 7:56 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 227 by bluescat48, posted 11-05-2007 9:54 AM IamJoseph has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 221 of 305 (432150)
11-04-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by IamJoseph
11-04-2007 5:47 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
The ToE doesn't apply to the origin of life, more the origin of the Universe.
The ToE doesn't apply until life first arrived on the scene.
quote:
Yes it does apply, and it is a false mindset which condones this lie.
No, it really doesn't apply.
If you disagree, then show me a definition of Biological Evolution from any Biology textbook or scientific source that includes the origin of life or of the Universe.
quote:
ToE does not start with life's origin because it is unable to - not because it does not want or intend to; but its doctrines clearly point to a nominated inference how life began.
Please provide a citation to a Biology textbook or scientific source which supports this claim.
quote:
The rest of ToE addicts have no choice but to go where ToE's finger is pointing, like blind sheep, settling into perhaps the most unscientific debacle ever labeled as science: 'IT JUST HAPPENED' - how does that pass as science?
So, is it your contention that hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last century or so are all completely incompetent at doing science, so much so that they've never noticed that all of their work is based upon a false premise?
How is it that any Genetics work has ever been able to be successful, sicne it is based upon the idea of all life having a common ancestor?
quote:
The first thing on the list is that the universe is 'FINITE' - it had a BEGINNING ['In the begging'].
Why couldn't a finite Universe have a natural origin?
quote:
The cause is given as by a Creator force, that at one time, nothing save for the creator existed [In the beginning Gd'].
What is the evidence for a "Creator Force"?
quote:
The next on the list is the perpetration of order in void.
This is a nonsense statment, as is the rest of your muddled and contentless rant.
There is no evidence in this list, only babblings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 5:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 9:15 AM nator has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 222 of 305 (432162)
11-04-2007 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by nator
11-04-2007 7:56 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
If you disagree, then show me a definition of Biological Evolution from any Biology textbook or scientific source that includes the origin of life or of the Universe.
As I said, it supports the origins of life by retrospective inference, with no option of any other understandings: it posits a principle, that life origins are aligned with no cause, and of its own. It points the finger with a sign, ONE WAY ONLY. Here, you have a causeless effect, matched with a creator effect. Proof does not apply any side. If one says life can be traced to a virus in a dna, and before that, animated life resulted from inanimate materials, of its own - then it is talking about how life began. It really does.
quote:
ToE does not start with life's origin because it is unable to - not because it does not want or intend to; but its doctrines clearly point to a nominated inference how life began.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide a citation to a Biology textbook or scientific source which supports this claim.
The one way inference principle applies. Causeless, anti-creationism stems from here. This is fine, but let them prove it - then knock Genesis.
This is the standard retort, but it does not change anything: if we use science to find cures, it is not because all of science's notions of the universe or life origins are thereby resolved and correctly known: it is not known.
quote:
How is it that any Genetics work has ever been able to be successful, sicne it is based upon the idea of all life having a common ancestor?
Science and medicinal cures were active well before we had any such idea. As well, a common denominator is hardly a new observation: all life is on the same planet, and there are few options for life here. If anything, the common denominator premise is first given in Genesis, not ToE, namely by the 'dust' [particles/earthly elements] being the materials for life: it is a word which can apply to all generation's understandings. In the same source as Genesis, the OT is also the first document to list malignancies, and contagious and infectious deseases, along with their ID, treatment and quarantine [leprosy]. Here, medicine was born, and for the first time separated from the occult: medicine is one of the first faculties of imperically based science, and at this time there was no knowledge how life emerged. I wouldn't call it anything less than science, nor can anyone else, solely because it does not have darwin's signature to it, or because it is regarded a theological document. Its still fully scientific and the first reference to medicine, as is the first notion of a finite universe vindicated by science today.
quote:
Why couldn't a finite Universe have a natural origin?
Because a finite universe cannot be explained without a cause, while an infinite universe need not focus on a cause, only a sub-set inside the infinite sector. IOW, an infinite is more condusive to an anti-creational premise. This is exactly what ToE does: its starting point is after life has emerged, but its directive is how life would have emerged, by virtue of backtracking this principle. As I stated previously, ToE does not know how life began, yet it posits how life keeps emerging every place, then uses this premise to signify life occurs by itself, randomly, with no causation factor: causation is not vested in the process sector.
If one asks how life or the universe began, biology is pushed aside: this is the common responsa of many scientists today - after making pronouncements why creationism is baseless: how do they know that, since they are only biologists? You can't have it both ways: the premise of the reasonings is faulty when examined further, and concludes in deflection as its response to pivotal issues upon it.
quote:
What is the evidence for a "Creator Force"?
If a premise is rejected, then it has to be substantiated. That's how science works - else one never questions any of its assertions, and treats it like a religion. This principle has its parallel in criminal law as well: where's the body? This is not about a premise which says the galaxy of virgo is made of candy, and go disprove it; rather it is about the universe and life emerging, and its order being shown as correct and scientifically presented - but not necessarilly aligned with any particular sciuence preference. The factor of the cause [Creator] is not given as a provable, so this cannot be the deciding factor here. Specially so, when science too cannot prove its own assertions. Its not a refutation.
That the opening stat of a finite universe is babblings is a babble in itself. my point was Genesis is not a babble but a scientific document, incorporating all the factors relevent to such a premise. That we do not find equations like MC2 in it does not change it: we find dates, names and places also in the OT: but no maps or calendar alongside as its proof. The same applies with stats which are relevent to science, as with other faculties such as maths and history. The proof is in its stats and specs, whether they are scientific and logical: we have to arrive at this findings by either rejecting a certain stat, or saying yes - it is feasable. That's how it works when proof and disproof is not available.
The stats are correct - in its science, maths and history. We now see that the finite aspect of the universe can be vindicated scientifically: its not babble - a word, BTW, which comes from Genesis, namely Babel, which also records the first recorded King [Nimrod] - also not babble in the history faculty.
As an adjoinder, there was a debate concerning the emergence of speech endowed humans, and that speech was not part of the communication thread seen in all other life forms. This issue was concluded in Genesis' favour. Why? Because none could offer any proof of speech in contradiction of Genesis' bold and very specific datings. The reasons [silly excuses] why no proof was available from its rejectors are secondary to the fulcrum factor, and these too can be shown as faulty. One of the reasons included that speech being difficult to correct define, made the issue redundent - again a secondary issue, and not condusive to the absence of any speech endowed humans anywhere in geo-history, covering millions of life forms and years to boot.
This makes Genesis a viable document for science to address - regardless whether one agrees with it or not; it is still a formidable obstacle for ToE, with no competition elsewhere, and its premises have NOT been disproven. Its not a babble. And all what Genesis says, is couched in the highest form of grammar - a faculty introduced here. It is also the first alphabetical books. What bable are you on about?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by nator, posted 11-04-2007 7:56 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 11-04-2007 10:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 305 (432175)
11-04-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by IamJoseph
11-04-2007 9:15 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Sorry, I just don't have any idea how your responses had anything to do with the questions I asked.
But, let me ask you this.
If we apply your "retrospective inference", the study of aerodynamics should be considered invalid because it does not explain where wind comes from, shouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 9:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 8:51 PM nator has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 224 of 305 (432255)
11-04-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by nator
11-04-2007 10:45 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
quote:
Sorry, I just don't have any idea how your responses had anything to do with the questions I asked.
Sorry is right. Everything was shown as a premise how the universe originated, in its first written recording, everything was scientifically based and feasable, nothing was negatable, almost every notion devised later by science can be seen as introduced from this point [no place else exists], including that the universe is finite - the first document to declare such [scientific fact today], all discussions on this issue are inclined against/for the factors in genesis' creation chapter - including the premise of evolution, the origin of life forms in their correct chronologically based categories - regarded as 'facts' in ToE, the first insight of a life form in its primal first appearance [the logical premise this was a dual-gendered life], presented in what are the first alphebetical books for a 1000 years therefter, and culminating in the world's most accurate calender - fully active today as the oldest one in existence.
I believe you asked me to 'LIST' some facts about the universe origins - which part was not in response to your question? Maybe you can show us how it is: list your facts how the universe was created. You do have these facts, right?
quote:
If we apply your "retrospective inference", the study of aerodynamics should be considered invalid because it does not explain where wind comes from, shouldn't it?
The difference is, the path in ToE does not equate with how wind moves. While the aero works for a plane, life could not have emerged as per the inter-specie process, when applied retrospectavily by links of growths seen in fossils. There is a missinng link here - that is why we can make planes fly - but we cannot evidence life forming anyplace as per ToE. The other factor here is, the aerodynamics never told us to go millions of years in a time machine and check it out: and if you possess even limited maths, I showed how the million year scenario does not impact, not for life's emergence nor the transit phases of ToE, which makes ToE as a slight of hand science devoid of maths credibility.
It is also seen that male/female repro depends on the first life entity possessing both genders, as opposed to independent counter life forms emerging separately but matching each other: have you ever worked out the odds for such - it is scientifically impossible, but not so with the process in genesis ['Male and female created he them'/Gen]? Was genesis wrong by saying life emerged in water too, and 'dust' [basic earthly elements] were its ingredients? Do you dispute the universe is logically and scientifically 'finite', and that repro must have the stated 'seed' factor for all transmission of data in life forms, not addressed in ToE?
I see your comparison with aerodynamics posed as a ridicule, but it has no substance or application whatsoever, and no impact on the factors I listed. if anything, it only proves genesis right and negatively impacts on ToE: a life form can emulate an adaptive trait from another life forms, as seen with humans emulating the traits of birds - without any speciation occuring here. Where would you say darwin got his basis for the chronological appearence of life forms: please point where this is first recorded?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 11-04-2007 10:45 AM nator has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 225 of 305 (432262)
11-04-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 3:47 PM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
Several, does not mean what you select. I gave you one check list.
No you haven't, and you still have not refuted the facts of the forams.
Not so: while an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence - this is hardly the case with evolutionary imprints - so the response is based on diabolical premises. An offspring is not negatable how it is derived. I call it casino science.
It doesn't matter what you call it and you haven't done squat to refute evolutoin yet -- the link from parent to child is just as demonstrable as is descent of living species from common ancestors by DNA -- the "seed" -- that gets passed from parent to offspring. Calling it by a different name doesn't change the facts, just tries to hide the reality.
There is no hereditary linkage in evolution, ...
But you just said there is: "... an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence ... An offspring is not negatable how it is derived" so you are contradicting yourself already -- a feature common with people who misrepresent the truth.
... while there is absolute linkage with host parents. The fulcrum factor is, a miriad of other reasonings can apply in the evolutionary premise - but solely one applies with an immediate offspring. This applies to all your responsa, which appears in the same vein - the fulcrum non-virtual issues are replaced with imaginative, academic vitual specs. The equivalence is distorted and contrived.
You are babbling again -- if you stop trying to sound intelligent you might actually be able to say something meaningful. Try simple words and aim for clarity, you might be surprised at the result.
Trying to obscure what you are saying on the other hand is just a way of deluding yourself that you actually mean something when it is just babble.
Of coz it can be falsified, and this is a prime area when it will be falsified. Any percieved differences can be due to several other factors, ...
... which if you were being honest and actually had these other possibilities intellectually developed to a degree that you could make this claim, this is the point at which you would start presenting them and showing just how they explain the apparent relatedness and how the differences actually appeared.
Humans fly planes - does it mean the tail-light of a plane spells evolution from birds to humans? No - because we can see where tail-lights come from, and we do not see them coming from birds per se. But the latter scenario can very easily be contrived by scientists - specially so when their conclusions are accepted by virtue of fcontrived reasonings, and no conclusive proof is demanded.
I've seen some ludicrous straw man arguments in my time but this is really devoid of any possible relationship to evolution.
LOL! Tell me about it - you don't want a situation requiring you to actually *PROVE* your premise as does the offspring from a seed!
Thus actually proving (once more, not that it really needed to be demonstrated again) that (1) you don't understand science or how it operates and (2) your total ignorance of how evolution operates. You need to stop reading creationist prattle and study what the real science involves.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits (DNA or "seed") in populations from generation to generation, the only trail is from parent to offspring, which you acknowledge.
Irrelevent - these are twists and turns to propel a certain perspective and view, which leads to a preferred conclusion - its anything to run far from nearing any actual proof. To get closer to understanding where it is poor casino science - you have to contemplate the reverse premise: what factors would enable a subset of an octopus eye to appear similar to a subset of another life form? Here, any reasonable imagination will pour out 100s of other factors. You want to select one of them, and make this your *PROOF* to an unrelated scenario, and thereby escape any further examination or deliberation.
Yet it still invalidates your point. Calling it irrelevant just means you can't deal with it, just as your claim to turn it around is pathetic -- because it's the same argument either way.
Oh - even though you are argueing humans came from those who suddenly exhibit no similarity? The reverse appears more coherent: if a human can copy a bird to fly planes, then it is more probable a bird can copy an existential trait by his environmental life surrounds - even if this is done via instincts instead of human thought and speech. This is an example how you select what fits your premise only.
Here your attempt to turn the argument around is even more ludicrous.
After all, you are argueing that life forms graduate and speciate on the one principle: evolution, but a very selective and moody evolution?
Life forms change through mutation and natural selection among other mechanisms. This is happening to all species known today.
Be assured, if it had occured, no one can deny it, and this debate is subsequent to its reverse factor only. You cannot deny the offspring via the seed - because it occurs every day, in all living species.
Of course. Evolution is an observed fact, it has been observed: species have changed hereditary traits from one generation to another. This is because your "seed" is identical and inseparable from DNA passed from generation to generation as demonstrated by your usage without any differentiation of definition.
I won't ask what you mean by 'generation' - millions of years visavis nine months for a human! Re-evaluate what 'equitable comparison' means.
What I mean is what people normally mean by generation, which has nothing to do with nine months or millions of years for humans. Can you really be so ignorant to (1) not know the meaning or (2) can't figure out how to look it up? I really wonder how many creationists are embarrassed to read your posts when you make comments like this.
Generation Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
2.the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.
The reason generation is used is because the length of time is different from species to species, while a little rational consideration will show that absolute time is irrelevant to the process of evolution. See if you can figure it out.
A re-evaluation is due here too - we seem to have different interpretations of the term 'ongoing process'. This applies to all transmissions every instant, not just a sub-set millions of years ago, or in populations.
So present something rather than say it can be done.
The seed transmission is an ongoing process!
Yep, evolution is an ongoing process, I fully agree.
You say its a fact and observed; I see a miriad of other explanations to account for your conclusions, but none which equates with the seed factor.
So you have said before, however the essential point that you fail to make is what a single one of those could be and how it is different from evolution. Until you do all you are doing is talking about evolution by a different name so you can fool yourself.
There is no problems whatsoever with the premise of a seed: this is a direct and immediate outgrowth from the host parent, aka 'semen' and 'egg', which accounts for all offspring transmissions, including DNA and other micro and macro data.
Just as you claim: "seed" == DNA, as I have already said. You have made no distinction of one from the other.
Nor did I fail in asserting speech being different in kind than degree: ...
Yet the Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind stands at 262 messages without showing any difference in kind, only difference in degree. If you don't regard that as a failure, then perhaps you need to look up the definition of failure.
Failure Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.
2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
do you need reminding, that there is no proof of speech being prevailent in historical longevity periods
Which does not invalidate speech in other animals, the actual issue at hand eh?
the excuse sited is there was no writings - as if a single 'name' of a human cannot be recalled without it as proof! Nor does a lack of knowing the exact definition reflect a failure in the differences with communication. If anything, the latter only affirms my position: it is precisely because there is a mystery here that the difference cannot be defined; this is not the case with communications of all other life forms, all of which possess the same mechanical organs and features, but display no speech: and you cannot define why this is so because it is a direct contradiction of evolution. The latter is understandable when you decide to examine evolution in terms of speech being different and unique: but there is a mental block here. Neo science is well on the way to becoming a religious science, where tresholds of dogmas cannot be breached.
More babble. Other animals use speech - verbal communication of emotion and thoughts - therefore it is not unique to man, not a difference in kind but ONLY in degree. This is what is show by 262 posts on the topic and which you have been shown to be totally incapable of refuting.
More than bable, it is hitting the nail on the head! You cannot perform in the arena outside your selective criteria, and must run away from actual and definitive premise none can question. You should be able to prove your case in all scenarios.
Babble. It seems it is what you are best at: stringing words together so that they appear to say something but in reality the total is meaningless babble.
No, it does not - the seed does this w/o a thing called evolution, while evolution cannot do this w/o a thing called the seed factor. That's a fact.
Evolution (in earth life forms) cannot do without DNA. Agreed. You haven't said anything new, all you have done is try to obscure what you are saying while pretending that it is different. You may fool gullible people, you may fool yourself, but I am not fooled.
Its not the 'change' factor that is the issue, but what and how that change is derived. A human from africa will start to resemble a chinese in a few generations if his ancestors were transferred to china 500 years ago: this change is not in doubt, and while you allocate this to evolution, it is easier traced to parentage input via the seed over that time period.
Not really, ... unless he breeds with chinese people and the offspring are selected for appearing chinese, and then the result will be due to evolution.
The same result is not forthcoming those 500 years with speciation: zebras won't emulate chinese people.
Which agrees with evolution.
... iow, there is no reason why a zebra won't become a chinese by your criteria.
No, for that is NOT evolution.
Of course there is more than just dna in repro via the seed: it is everything, including skeletal and mental imprints, and bar none.
And yet science has shown that this is false for all but DNA, and that DNA is the only thing you are left with.
It's a very simple experiment: take any fertilized egg, remove the DNA inside the nucleus, and replace it with DNA from the nucleus of a fertilized egg from another species and that other species will grow.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : sp

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 3:47 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 1:09 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024