|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Buz, as everyone familiar with your little performances knows, you're the one who refuses to do proper research (and complains bitterly whenever it is suggested that you should do more). You're the one who foolishly falls for nonsense, lies and fraud (and complains bitterly when it is suggested that you should vet your sources with more care). And you're the one who complains when others DO think for themselves instead of mindlessly accepting your assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi agent_509, and welcome back.
Yes I might have to respond to my original messages at some point, although crashfrog is right, this isn't really the thread for it. One thing to keep in mind, is which ones actually apply to evolution, and which ones are red herrings. A short? primer on evolution
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in hereditary traits and changes to their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Mutations can cause changes in the hereditary traits of individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations do so (many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism. Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. The process of evolution (also called "micro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
(2) Speciation is the process whereby parent populations are divided into two or more reproductively isolated, independently evolving, daughter populations. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits and their distributions within the sub-populations. Over time, these different responses accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population evolves independently of the other/s. An additional observable result of speciation is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the parent species. With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Speciation, and the subsequent divergence of daughter populations, is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. The process of speciation with the subsequent formation of a branching genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations (also called "macro-evolution" in biology) is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from history and from the life we observe in the world all around us. This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. References
(I recommend reading and studying these references (and other pages they are linked to), as they deal with evolution as taught by evolutionist biologists (an oxymoron) and they use the terminology as it is intended to be used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular.) Thus when we talk about abiogenesis, for example, we can see that we are not talking about starting with a breeding population, so this is not part of the process of evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
(jeers - from Buzsaw)
Priceless!Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Hi Zen Deist
Evolution had nothing to do with my deconversion at all. I did not and still don't know much about biology. I do know a lot about some rocks. Creationists did not tell the truth about those same rocks. They kept on telling untruth after untruth. Even after they were shown exactly where they were telling untruths. They still kept doing it and still keep on repeating those untruths. That did it for me. That lead me to think that those creationists don't ever tell the truth about anything. I started investigating what they have to say about the other natural sciences, too. They always tell untruths about every branch of the natural sciences. They never tell the truth. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Good point, Buz.
Always telling untruths is a bit much, in terms of characterising xians. But it is fair to say that many xians do to try to discredit non creationists views by mis representing what the various scientific actually say (when said theories conflicts with creationist ideas).The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Isn't it curious. I've seen many stories from people who turned away from creationism and accepted science after they stopped simply believing what others told them and looked at the evidence themselves. I've never seen one story about anyone who turned away from science to creationism because the evidence told them so. The closest I can think of is Kurt Wise, but he's the first to admit that he believes the bible despite the evidence, not because of it.
Can anyone point me to a scientist who turned from science to creationism because that's where they believed the evidence led them?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Isn't it curious. I've seen many stories from people who turned away from creationism and accepted science after they stopped simply believing what others told them and looked at the evidence themselves. The young man acted to hastily. His problem is simple, he has confused evolution with creationism, they have nothing do with eachother directly and are therefore unrelated Not thinking things through to there logical conclusion will always result in hasty and unwise choices. Its a matter of simple logic and reasoning, not someones opinions I know therefore he has not examined the 'Evidence'
Can anyone point me to a scientist who turned from science to creationism because that's where they believed the evidence led them? Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity That would be like saying can anyone point me to a scientist who has turned away from science to demonstrate his conclusions Your question is non-sensical and illogical Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity HHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA seriusly rofl magic man dun it is not science period!!!! LOL p.s. Even i fmagic man had dun it it would not be science how did he do itwhat proceces where involved how can you tell he dun it magic just does not cut it Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by AdminModulous, : put carriage returns in the hhaa section to avoid formatting issues.Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
HHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA HHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA seriusly rofl magic man dun it is not science period!!!! LOL p.s. Even i fmagic man had dun it it would not be science how did he do itwhat proceces where involved how can you tell he dun it magic just does not cut it Well an actual argument in response to what i had argued, would have been better, but if this is all you have Ill understand Its not majic, its science, all reasoning to proper conclusions is science, unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise I guess you have nothing better than the above Dawn Bertot Edited by AdminModulous, : added carriage returns to the HHAA section to avoid formatting issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Its not majic, its science, all reasoning to proper conclusions is science, unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise Well no creationism is not reasoned at all it is anti reason. Scientist looks at the world and says to himself i wonder how our planet was made let me check if i can see a sloarsystem forming among the stars. Creatinost looks at the world i wonder how this flat disk im standing on is was made better check the bible. Scientist i think i have a moddel how this planet was formed let me check the math if it works. Creationis umm science guy you still working on your crackpot theory i have the anwser alredy god dun it with magic. scientist oki think it all adds up let me publish the paper and see what others think abbout it if they find any holes. Creationist u still not dun Scientis hmm the other scientist are right i need more evidence to support my timeline this other guy invented many dating methods i wonder if icould use them and see if the data coroborates my timeline of the earth forming. Creatinoist il give you the anwser its 6000 years cmmon u still not dun Ok so now i got my moddel 4 billion years ago the earth formed was hot then slowly cooled got hit by the moon warmed up again the moon fell in to orbit arround the planet. Creatinoist u silly scientist you got it all wrong my book says god dun it 6000 years ago, and il BEND any evidence i can to support this and IGNORE the rest. Scientist oh im not dun yet il never be new data is comming in every day and none supports you magic man "theory" so drop it alredy. If one piece of evidence negates my theory il drop it and find a new one because that is how science works. Every form of dating that we have at our disposal today says the earth is older then 6000 years so FUCK YOU CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE!!! Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 828 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
That's great and all, but you've had ample chance to prove your point and have failed to do so at every turn so perhaps you would like to stop posting off topic bullshit psycho-babble?
And since you are woefully ignorant of what reason it, a reasoned response would sound something like "yes, I indeed am off topic. I shall start a topic on Dawn Bertot creationism".Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pressie,
Evolution had nothing to do with my deconversion at all. I did not and still don't know much about biology. Nor do I expect that it has much to do with other deconversions. Creationism has no real problems with evolution -- both micro-evolution within populations and macro-evolution dividing species, are necessary for creationist models to work (all that swift and varied descent from the purported "kinds"). No, the real beef is with abiogenesis and the numbers and forms of original species. This is why so much creationist verbiage about evolution relies on misrepresenting what evolution is actually about. Thus the short primer -- for reference if for no other purpose.
I do know a lot about some rocks. Creationists did not tell the truth about those same rocks. They kept on telling untruth after untruth. Even after they were shown exactly where they were telling untruths. They still kept doing it and still keep on repeating those untruths. As far as I can see, the most telling arguments against a young earth concept are the ones involving the rock solid evidence of vast age, as I have laid out in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? threads. The evidence shows that a young earth concept is just not compatible with the evidence.
That did it for me. That lead me to think that those creationists don't ever tell the truth about anything. ... I wouldn't say never, but it certainly is not common for the truth to be presented and argued correctly in these debates.
... I started investigating what they have to say about the other natural sciences, too. They always tell untruths about every branch of the natural sciences. They never tell the truth. Another reason for the short primer. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agent_509 Junior Member (Idle past 4495 days) Posts: 16 Joined:
|
Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity ROFL, are you thinking of the same definition of creationism everyone else is? If so, creationism conclusions are derived from the bible, and then creationists try and find facts to support it. This wouldn't be a problem, if facts supporting it actually existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is so funny when Creationists make any claim that they follow the scientific method or manner. It is also simply false and once again an example of the misrepresentation and total lack of any culture of honesty similar to what is the basis of Science.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agent_509 Junior Member (Idle past 4495 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
creationists are the scientific rational ones, and evolutionists are the religious, dogmatic zealots who have blind faith. Interesting projection.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024