|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dredge writes: Even the village idiot knows that no one will ever be able to prove that ToE describes the process that produced the fossil record. Yes, the village idiot does apparently think he knows this.
And I do NOT accept the claim that YOU know what they are. You must be confusing me with someone else ... I never made that claim. How odd - I also seem to recall you making such claims. For example, didn't you say words to the effect that we can't possibly know how evolution worked in the past?
A theory is...just an idea that describes a possibility. I don't think I've ever seen theory defined this way. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Never litigated one.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I'm sure you're a very competent lawyer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Fair point and I understand your confusion.
To clarify ...I don't accept that humans evolved, but were instantaneously created by God as per Genesis 2:7. I don't accept or deny that non-human life-forms are the result of a contiguous process of biological evolution, although the fossil record reveals a history that could be referred to loosely as one of "evolution".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Please be advised that ToE is neither a fact and nor is it knowledge.
That's why, unlike you, we rely on evidence to support our facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
I don't accept that humans evolved, but were instantaneously created by God as per Genesis 2:7. No one can say your god exists let alone created humans. You can't prove god. You can't prove creation. You have no evidence. You have no facts at all. Your bible is a badly written sleazy poronographic fiction that has no credemce, no provence and no legitimacy. It stands as nothing and means nothing and cannot be used as evidence of anything other than some 3000 year old goat herder's wet dream.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
On the contrary, millions of people can and do say those things.
No one can say your god exists let alone created humans.You can't prove god. You can't prove creation. You have no evidence. You have no facts at all.
I never said I can prove those things, nor claimed that they're facts. Do please try and pay attention, lest you make more embarrassing blunders like this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
No one can say your god exists let alone created humans.
You can't prove god. You can't prove creation. You have no evidence. You have no facts at all. Your bloody fantasy stories give no knowledge or comfort to humanity and make evil in society.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Only around 5% of lawyers are involved with litigation. The rest of us deal with contracts and similar.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I see. Thank you for that information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Do you specialize in any area of the law?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
This comment represents a degree of progress and thus, a glimmer of hope. More accurately, it is assumed that life in the past followed the same processes as life today. We know how evolution works because we can observe it in real time today.You've at least admitted that ToE is based, not on a fact, but on an assumption. Well done. There *is* a common creationist argument that life in the past was different from life today ... There is no evidence from the past, neither recent nor distant, that the processes of life were any different from today. If you think these processes were different in the past and at some point changed to the processes we observe today, what evidence are you looking at that tells you this, and when did the change happen?
I can't recall arguing that life in the past was different from life today.
We know exactly how evolution works because we observe it happening in the here and now.
I'm afraid not. You can't prove that known evolutionary mechanisms were responsible for producing the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works. Simple logic shoots your claim down in flames. Sorry.
In the sense that you're using the word "know," no, of course not. Everything in science is tentative. What we would actually say is that the theory of evolution provides a robust explanatory framework for the history of life as revealed by the fossil record.
Can you see how confused you are? You say "We know exactly how evolution works" and in the very next sentence in your post you admit that you don't "know" that life on earth evolved according to ToE.
Anyone constructively participating in an exchange of information would ask clarifying questions when a point fails to connect. You instead seem to be working hard at not understanding anything while confounding efforts to communicate using strategies such as making absurd comments about your IQ.
I don't recall "making absurd comments about [my] IQ." There is an almost-unanimous opinion on this thread that I am an idiot. I agree with that opinion, which, after all, is formed by individuals of exceptionally high intelligence.
Science doesn't prove things. As with everything in the universe, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the way we see things happening today is the way they must have happened in the past.
No one has ever observed known evolutionary mechanisms ever producing even a new genera, so what we see happening today is a very poor explanation for what happened in the fossil record, where entire new phyla appear.
Do you have any evidence that life in the past didn't reproduce via the replication of genetic material and that the organisms that passed their genes on to the next generation passed through a selection process governed by the natural environment? In the absence of such evidence, the theory of evolution is the best we have for explaining the available evidence.
I agree that that theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record ... which however, doesn't permit anyone to claim to know how evolution works.
In the same way, no matter what the current state of an organism's genome, no matter how much prior change there's been, what could prevent more mutations from occurring? Nothing could prevent this, right? There's nothing that could lock down a genome and prevent further change. If the organism reproduces there will be change, right?
You can't prove, for example, that the genome of a fish eventually gave rise to the gemone of a mammal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
A shameful example of contextomy.
And your conclusion is obviously nonsensical. Our science cures diseases and puts men on the moon. No sensible person would call it irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
This comment represents a degree of progress and thus, a glimmer of hope. You've at least admitted that ToE is based, not on a fact, but on an assumption. Well done.
More accurately, it is assumed that life in the past followed the same processes as life today. We know how evolution works because we can observe it in real time today.There *is* a common creationist argument that life in the past was different from life today ... There is no evidence from the past, neither recent nor distant, that the processes of life were any different from today. If you think these processes were different in the past and at some point changed to the processes we observe today, what evidence are you looking at that tells you this, and when did the change happen?
I can't recall arguing that life in the past was different from life today.
We know exactly how evolution works because we observe it happening in the here and now.
I'm afraid not. You can't prove that known evolutionary mechanisms were responsible for producing the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works. Simple logic shoots your claim down in flames. Sorry.
In the sense that you're using the word "know," no, of course not. Everything in science is tentative. What we would actually say is that the theory of evolution provides a robust explanatory framework for the history of life as revealed by the fossil record.
Can you see how confused you are? You say "We know exactly how evolution works" and in the very next sentence in your post you admit that you don't "know" that life on earth evolved according to ToE.
Anyone constructively participating in an exchange of information would ask clarifying questions when a point fails to connect. You instead seem to be working hard at not understanding anything while confounding efforts to communicate using strategies such as making absurd comments about your IQ.
I don't recall "making absurd comments about [my] IQ." There is an almost-unanimous opinion on this thread that I am an idiot. I agree with that opinion, which, after all, is formed by individuals of exceptionally high intelligence.
Science doesn't prove things. As with everything in the universe, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the way we see things happening today is the way they must have happened in the past.
No one has ever observed known evolutionary mechanisms ever producing even a new genera, so what we see happening today is a very poor explanation for what happened in the fossil record, where entire new phyla appear.
Do you have any evidence that life in the past didn't reproduce via the replication of genetic material and that the organisms that passed their genes on to the next generation passed through a selection process governed by the natural environment? In the absence of such evidence, the theory of evolution is the best we have for explaining the available evidence.
I agree that that theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record ... which however, doesn't permit anyone to claim to know how evolution works.
In the same way, no matter what the current state of an organism's genome, no matter how much prior change there's been, what could prevent more mutations from occurring? Nothing could prevent this, right? There's nothing that could lock down a genome and prevent further change. If the organism reproduces there will be change, right?
You can't prove, for example, that the genome of a fish eventually gave rise to the gemone of a mammal. Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
By "evolution" I don't necessarily mean a contiguos process of biological change.
We can close this thread now. Dredge agrees evolution happened.He's a Darwinist now.
Not even close ...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024