Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What convinced you of Evolution?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 157 (70387)
12-01-2003 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DaVx0r
12-01-2003 8:17 PM


For myself the more I understood the easier it was to see how much sense it made.
You should head off to the other thread discussing evidence for evolution. Your statments such as:
DaVxOr writes:
that a theory with an extremely insignificant amount of evidence could be true.
are very wrong. If you think otherwise you could go to the appropriate threads and demonstrate how much you know about available evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DaVx0r, posted 12-01-2003 8:17 PM DaVx0r has not replied

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


Message 6 of 157 (70465)
12-01-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by DaVx0r
12-01-2003 9:46 PM


You are now starting to wander off your own topic. I think there are thread appropriate for that. Go the the "Is it Science" forum perhaps. When you repost there we can talk about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DaVx0r, posted 12-01-2003 9:46 PM DaVx0r has not replied

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


Message 11 of 157 (70479)
12-01-2003 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by DaVx0r
12-01-2003 11:01 PM


No, there are a number of reasons why people are here.
Myself, I'm here to learn about the enemies of reason.
This has proved to be useful a number of times already. I, now and then, run into people who think that maybe this "equal time" thing is fair. That he creation "scientists" should have a say in school as a balance kind of thing.
However, a short exposure to the level of reason shown by creationists and the complete lack of any evidence for their postition pretty quickly produces more laughter than any sympathy for the position. If it is a friend of mine taking the "equal time" position I don't have to say anything myself, just let them read over material here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by DaVx0r, posted 12-01-2003 11:01 PM DaVx0r has not replied

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


Message 14 of 157 (70498)
12-02-2003 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by sfs
12-01-2003 11:28 PM


It would appear that we need to explore the meanings among ourselves. Clearly people use the word "religious" in a number of different ways.
If I say someone is "religious" about their fitness classes. I would hardly be meaning the same thing as when I say the Pope is a deeply "religious" man, would I?
If we take it as simply being something that a person pays a lot of attention to then to someone (as has been said earlier), somewhere, everything is a religion.
If that is the meaning you want, DaVx0r, the answer is so what? Sure it is a religion. However, the separation of church and state did not intend to separate football, now did it?
Is Christianity just as important as football? Is that all it is because it is just another religion like football is?
If it isn't just like football then please offer a definition which separates them.
You initial definition has the word "faith" in there. I'm sure some fans have "faith" that their team will win, in spite of all evidence. Or is that not the kind of faith you meant?
And, while we are at it, where does faith enter into the ToE? It seems to me that one doesn't get away with taking something on faith in science. You need data and/or darn good logical reasonig to support your conjectures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sfs, posted 12-01-2003 11:28 PM sfs has not replied

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


Message 59 of 157 (71037)
12-04-2003 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Thronacx
12-04-2003 4:43 PM


Step by Step Details
That all depends whats being looked at, and whose doing the looking.
Ok, go over this step by step. Describe what you are taking as being factual input to the process and then lead us through the logic that arrives at a different conclusion.
Since you are a different "who" doing the looking perhaps you'll be able to cast a new light on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Thronacx, posted 12-04-2003 4:43 PM Thronacx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Thronacx, posted 12-04-2003 5:45 PM NosyNed has replied

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


Message 64 of 157 (71048)
12-04-2003 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Thronacx
12-04-2003 5:45 PM


The depth, rock type and dating methods clearly indicate burial by the flood
A sort of example but not something real that we can discuss is it?
It seems we start of with dating methods and a flood.
Could you go to the appropriate fora/threads and discuss your dating methods? I didn't even know that creationists even had any.
Then you could go the appropriate forum for the flood and show how it could have happened.
It would appear there is not good discussing the interpretation of fossils if we don't start with the same facts.
Facts like, the earth is old and the flood could not have happened. Since you start with the wrong facts you are not likely to arrive at the right interpretation of any fossils are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Thronacx, posted 12-04-2003 5:45 PM Thronacx has not replied

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


Message 95 of 157 (71591)
12-08-2003 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 1:26 PM


Re: Evolution
jantoo1, Guess what! Dan and other here do know what you are talking about (or can at least guess). However, it is apparent you don't. Put forward the details of your arguement and the facts behind it. You might just learn something through the ensueing debate.
It is probably that everything you will bring up as already been posted here. You could use the search feature under Forums Nav to find them. If you want to prove your point you'll have to post something substantive. Otherwise it will be presumed that it is a waste of time to discuss things with you. Lots of people are big on making assertions and weak on backing them up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 1:26 PM jantoo1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 2:21 PM NosyNed has replied

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


Message 107 of 157 (71618)
12-08-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 2:21 PM


Prehistoric Fish Google
Is this the site you wanted?
GenioCards.com is for sale | HugeDomains
What is your point? Could you pick some part of the site that is relavant. Show what logic leads to a problem for the ToE from there?
I think this ties back to this post of yours:
They have found a prehistoric fish 12 years ago, they looked exactly the same.. Now if we evolved as they would have us believe, then why does a fish that scientist TOLD us was extinct, get nabbed in a net, and it is the mirror image of what is was like 65 million years ago...Hmmmmmmm!!!
However, there is no "mirror image" fish. If there was it would not disprove the ToE (though a species surviving that long would be a big surprise). If I can guess which one you are talking about your 12 years is out by a factor of 5.
Since this seems to be the whole of your "evidence" you might want to work on it a bit more.
That is both your facts AND you logic AND your knowledge of evolutionary theory are wrong.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 2:21 PM jantoo1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 6:10 PM NosyNed has replied

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


Message 113 of 157 (71676)
12-08-2003 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 6:10 PM


The Point???
However, if You haven`t gotten the point by now, Why are you even talking to me???
What point? You haven't made a point yet.
All I've gotten from you so far is that somehow some kinda "prehistoric fish" is somehow or other connected to the creation vs evolution debate. What fish and how it is connected to the debate?
Bored? No - I don't believe in bored. In fact, I'm here because this is fun! So far you've prattled on without getting to any specifics and now are getting all hostile because someone asks what appear to me to be reasonable questions. That I find rather amusing (it may be that I'm easily amused )
This seems to be an approach that someone who hasn't a clue how to deal with the debate might use. Let's see if that proves to be true in this case (and certainly not for the first time).
As for where is the proof, you might try reading over some of the threads where this has already been discussed. Since the very large majority of all scientists accept the various aspects of what goes into the debate (age of earth, evolution's occurance, new-Darwinism as explanation, no global flood) it is the job of the new outsider who wants to turn over physics, geology and biology to come up with something.
If you don't want to try to do that or can't then you will be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 6:10 PM jantoo1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 7:00 PM NosyNed has replied

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


Message 116 of 157 (71683)
12-08-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rei
12-08-2003 6:19 PM


Deserving
I hadn't noticed that you've ever done anything to deserve nasty, Rei.
I'm pretty sure that out new, temporary visitor just doesn't like people who know more than he does. That apparently is enough to deserve nasty remarks that he thinks somehow contributes to his proving his points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rei, posted 12-08-2003 6:19 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 7:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 117 of 157 (71687)
12-08-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 7:00 PM


Welcoming to visitors
I suggest that you look over the welcome that others have gotten. Ninja Monkey and Sonic for example. They both believe (d) as you do but they were a little less dogmatic. Since you seem to be getting a somewhat different welcome you might wonder why.
I'll start ignoring you when you stop being so much fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 7:00 PM jantoo1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 7:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 136 of 157 (71756)
12-08-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jantoo1
12-08-2003 9:08 PM


Being a butthead
Buttheads don't look over what they have said, see the other person's point of view and apologize.
I've seen a lot of the stuff posted by creationist sites and if you are only working with that then it is understandable that you might have the wrong idea and come on, perhaps, a bit strong.
and (as best as I can manage) it's see-lo-kanth
The thing with it is a fish of the same family as fish which existed 65 Myr ago (millions of years ago) but not the same species or even genus. They have evolved.
As I said it would be a big surprise if a species lasted that long (I think the average is about 5 Myr but I'm not sure). However, so what? If conditions were somehow very stable then it might stay very similar for a long time. Evolution allows for that but I think it would be considered pretty unlikely that a genome would be that stable since, for one thing, selective pressures would be unlikely to be that stable.
Where does the ToE say things have to evolve a lot or quickly? Any way, as noted, it has changed a lot but is pretty clearly related to the lobe fins of megayears ago. Perhaps more clearly than that blue jays are related to tyrannosaurs but only a bit more clearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jantoo1, posted 12-08-2003 9:08 PM jantoo1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by jantoo1, posted 12-09-2003 12:19 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 144 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-09-2003 5:44 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 143 of 157 (71783)
12-09-2003 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by jantoo1
12-09-2003 12:19 AM


Truth?
Truth can get all philosphical. What we look for is the most reasonable answer that we can find at any given time. Is it "truth"? I dunno about what that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jantoo1, posted 12-09-2003 12:19 AM jantoo1 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