Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,774 Year: 16,810/19,786 Month: 935/2,598 Week: 181/251 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 370 of 687 (523057)
09-08-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by lyx2no
08-21-2009 11:45 PM


Re: Congrats. I Think You've One You Can Win.
It has been "proven" to the satisfaction of all but the most perverse that man didn't arise fully formed from dust

This has not been "proven" under the definition of a sound deductive syllogism that leaves no holes or flaws possible. There is an induction present which has led to a scientific consensus that evolution happened, despite major facts and evidences that would normally lead to a paradigm shift.

Instead the answer is; "oh but we already know evolution happened, therefore let's find an evolutionary answer rather than look at another possibility".

There are neutral folk whom have big big problems believing in evolution, because of the problems with it.

I have not seen good enough logical answers to explain away such contrary facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lyx2no, posted 08-21-2009 11:45 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by lyx2no, posted 09-08-2009 4:38 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 371 of 687 (523062)
09-08-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
08-21-2009 10:48 PM


Science has no evidence of how life began to exist.

That is exactly true.

Evolutionists don't seem to think this is a problem. We have seen in the past how people like Haeckel formed his monera, and told us that a simple form led to present forms yet now we know that all life is complex, and that a cell is just as complex as our bodies.(His supposed gills are nevertheless in modern biological textbooks despite them being fake).

The fact is that we are basically asked to dismiss the beginning, as not that relevant, because of biological evolution whereas the logical problems for chemical evolution are major, to say the least, and require a great deal of belief in natural processes having unlimited abilities.

Therefore Science has not proved God did not create the universe and life as presented in Genesis.

And yet people seem to think that we are arguing that God did, based on science not proving he did. How odd.

This is the whole thing right here - that people are trying to explain origins without a designer, anyway they can, rather than seeing the most obvious and best answer to the problems. Always learning, but never knowing.

Infact science, and facts, which science deals with, certainly show, without a doubt, that there is design, and that logically it follows that a designer therefore must be present, because if we take known designs, however poor they are, like a really bad car, we can see that it follows that it still required a designer and construction. Therefore it is ludicrous to say that something as amazing as an organism, did not need a designer and construction.

100% induction of evidence thus far shows life coming from life.

That's quite an induction, yet despite it being 100% should we believe in abiogenesis any more that spontaneous generation?

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 08-21-2009 10:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2009 2:31 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 375 of 687 (523123)
09-08-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Rrhain
09-08-2009 2:31 PM


I thought I told you I was finished with you forever. no really, I find you very argumentative which makes our exchanges futile.

I do not remember the names of the textbooks. One was published in 2001. I believe they still show the branchial arches to be gill slits even though they form into the ear canal, tonsils, etc...nothing to do with breathing. creationworldview.org might have the names, as I heard the seminar from Dr Grady McMurtree.

As for abiogenesis, chemical evolution and biological evolution, seem to basically be two types of highly unlikely evolutions and are obviously part of the same naturalist approach.

Name one "logical problem" for evolution.

Which evolution? I believe we have discussed this elsewhere. If you mean abiogenesis, the problems are well know, such as the racemic aminos being left-handed in lifeforms. Also things such as enzymes to speed up processes.

Time is also an enemy. The time-lengths involved are too great a problem, as the make-up for life would break down before it was made. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. But alas, i am not discussing it further with you.

the rest is wildly off-topic. I did not state evidence, I stated "fact". Evidence is a weak consequent because of the modus tollens, therefore I would not state that design is so much evidence as it is fact. Even scientists use the term design, and they don't show how it evolved, they use a phylogenetic tree, which they compose, to show how they think it evolved.

There will be no response, I have given my opinion but it's already a tatty affair because you wildly jump from one issue to the next. Perhaps you should just read the conversation between me and modulous.
Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2009 2:31 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:09 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 419 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 2:54 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 376 of 687 (523124)
09-08-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Rrhain
09-08-2009 2:31 PM


When I mention evidence I mean the induction so far shows that all life comes from life, nothing more. The modus tollens, even one example of a falsification, would disprove the induction.

The fact of design is observable. Your only argument can be; "there is no design".

Qualify what would be a design, given the poor designs humans come up with.

Can God make things evolve? By definition he must, he is God - but it doesn't follow that it happened because of this.

I believe the bible's literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts, I only have "doubts" against this, no reasons, other than weak ones that require giving natural processes a 0% interest rate.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2009 2:31 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 3:16 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 425 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:19 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 380 of 687 (523134)
09-08-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Sasuke
09-08-2009 3:09 PM


Hi.

I don't argue life didn't come from none-life. I believe in Genesis afterall, NOT abiogenesis.

I believe the only plausable explanation for life is a designer bringing it about. You will ofcourse argue that this could happen via natural means.

I agree that is possible, but again, I believe Genesis is the correct account and makes most theological sense of the whole bible, to take it literally. It's composition isn't that of a parable despite the claims it is.

I won't rule out that possibility, but the fact is that evolution will never be accepted together with a "Genesis". The scientific community will only accept a natural answer, even if the history or "truth" is not a scientific answer. This is why I made a topic saying that scientific explanations of origins go too far and assume a great deal from an actual position of ignorance.

There is the God of the gaps, but there is also a "naturalistic license" that "presumes" nature has the power to make processes responsible for things which aren't processes.

Design isn't a process, it's an observed fact. therefore it is an error to find a problem where there isn't one.

This is why evolution has to be so elaborate, to make up for the fact that it requires you deny the facts and accept "nothing" instead of facts.

There are generally no transitionals unless you "believe" they are. Most of the fossil record shows modern animals, either larger or very slightly different. Bacteria are fossilized even though they replicate thousands of times faster than humans. Their whole history should be within the fossils, but instead you find fossils of...............guess what? Three guesses. You got it! bacteria!!

"Time" is the next "nothing", abiogenesis is the next "nothing", mutations and NS show us guess what? That's right - no new designs at all that weren't previously there. Another "nothing".

The textbooks are ofcourse, sophisticated and elaborately brilliant. They have to be - a good trick always has to be.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:09 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2009 3:47 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 382 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:51 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 384 of 687 (523140)
09-08-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Sasuke
09-08-2009 3:51 PM


I'm not arguing God is biological. I am arguing that Genesis is more plausable than abiogenesis.

In a kind of mild-mannered, fair-minded, honest debate I would grant that abiogenesis is one possibility of how God could have created life, but 1. It is not consistent with Genesis. 2. I "deduce" things beyond our present wordologies.

This "ailment" allows me to see all of the angles, and motives.

The motive is essentially to have natural explanations for everything, so as to state that a parsimonious view means God is not required. I would be highly obtuse to believe that naturalism is an attempt to prove the bible true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 3:51 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 4:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 421 of 687 (523249)
09-09-2009 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 2:54 AM


When you cannot support your own argument, it is very frustrating to have someone point it out.

First you have to understand my arguments. Usually, I can tell you that you rarely do. What you do is jump down my throat. You throw about ten issues and fifteen strawmans in there and seem to think it's an analysis.

Then you'll understand when I call bullshit on your claim.

This is a common creationist whine, but the names of the books in question never seem to be available.

Call me odd, but the names od biology books don't strike me as particularly memorable. If you think this makes my claim bullshit, that's your opinion, it won't change the truth of the matter. It is hard for me to find the books but I can name them if the seminar is repeated, and then I guess you will apologize? No>? I thought not.

In air-breathing animals, the gill arches develop into other structures.

The branchial arches are not therefore "gill arches". This is basic logic Rrhain, time to study more carefully. You can term them what you want, they are irrelevant rudimentary shapes.

Chirality is not a problem. We can create self-replicating, autocatalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve in the lab. You need to keep up on the state of the science. This has been a possibility for well over a decade. This has been brought up many times here. Why are you continuing to proclaim something that isn't true?

If I need to keep up with science, why do you ask that I proclaim something isn't true if you assume I didn't know about it?

You can do many things in the lab because it is a place designed to make correct conditions, and manipulate the variables. This doesn't evidence abiogenesis in the least. A basic grasp of logic will teach you this. Even the Urey/Miller experiment made the problems go away, such as oxygen etc.... but alas, there is no need for me to disprove that which is not proven in the least.

Your argument is that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.

Not surprisingly, that is not my argument at all. I didn't make much of an argument. Most of my argument you make for me, they're called strawman arguments.

Huh? I respond to your post and I'm the one jumping from one issue to the next? That makes no sense.

If you can't see how numerous topics were related to me in yopur initial response, then I question your comprehension. You didn't merely respond to my post, you jumped to many conclusions about many different topics.

Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?

Here's one wrong conclusion here, as an example of how you seem to consistently fail to understand anything I write;

In other words, you know you cannot justify it so rather than simply say, "Oops, I have made a mistake," you're going to whine about it.

Because somebody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to respond.

Can't justify what? That I think it would be more fruitful for you to read a normal intelligent conversation than aggressively argue with me about issues I didn't even raise, and things I didn't even say.

Rrhain....I am more than happy to give you the rope. I find it highly enjoyable smashing your ad hominem strawman posts into oblivion as per usual, but if you want pain, what can I do other than oblige?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 2:54 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 6:37 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 422 of 687 (523258)
09-09-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 3:16 AM


Oh, so the fossil record is bullshit? There is absolutely nothing to learn from examining the remains of the life that existed before we were here?

THIS is why I don't debate you. You are almost lying about me here. Why would I state tthat the fossil record is bullshit, I don't deny science, I deny naturalism. My points were about naturalism, and the fact that chemical and biological evolution are part of the same story that goes with all of the other theoretical naturalism.

So you don't ask questions at all, you simply twist things in all almost immoral capacity.

That's why I recommended you'd be better to read me debate an honest, intelligent, coherent person who won't twist what I say. If you read a debate between me and modulous, you'll find that despite the few struggles we have with eachother, we basically are having a fruitful conversation.

I don't trust you at all. THIS is why I don't debate you, because I have lost all respect for you. Your motive is to twist everything I say to suit you own hate-agenda, and believe it or not, I simply don't want to be around such a grotesquely bizarre individual.

I'm afraid your example did not show life coming from none-life in the least. No, I don't think that this means your side knows nothing, but I do believe it is reasonable for me to assume Genesis just as much as I assume abiogenesis, if experiments are still nowhere near a cell.

Elaborate as your examples are, and I commend your knowledge in that area, those examples don't satisfy me personally, on an intellectual scale.

Believe it or not, you do not have to think the worst of me because of this. All it means is that I believe a design-scenario is much more persuasive when we look at the facts of design, rather than the theoretics of evolution/s.

Yes, I'm biased, ofcourse I am because I believe that naturalist theories are more belief than facts or evidence. I concede that an example of a transitional could be a species such as neaderthal man.

Did I just say that Rrhain? Did I just say I admitt evidence of transitionals? Infact get this - the most impressive transitionals, TO ME, are the ones in the homo genus.

But you don't ask - you jump. You jump, jump, jump to many, many fallacious conclusions about "mike" that are either ad hominem, or you make ad logicam allusions to what other folk have said. You should know that objectively, the notation of logic does not allow such behavior to be sound in the least, yet you do it anyway, because you hate everything about me. THAT is your real motive - your worldview, and your opposition to me, because of cynicism.

It's not just me who has had problems with you at this site, it's even atheists aswell.

You can respond to my posts, but if spouting lies about me is okay with you then I can't respect you at all. Infact, I reiterate, I do not trust you, and for other reasons also.

I looked into some of the things you said in the past, experiments and such and it turned out that you had not given me all of the information, you hade presented it in a very specific way that would only suit your cause. it's a common behaviour, but again, it's not intellectually honest because I can only make sound conclusions based on all of the information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 3:16 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 7:11 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 424 of 687 (523271)
09-09-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 3:16 AM


Your argument is that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.

Your argument is that because you don't know everything, then that lack of knowledge means I should believe in abiogenesis, which is proven through information you don't have?

You think that because you don't know "how" abiogenesis happened, or there is not evidence "yet" of your theory, that I should believe this lack of something favours such a theory?

That is perhaps the most stupid argument I have ever heard. How would objective information as yet undiscovered have a name-tag on it saying, "the theory Rrhain wants to be true", on it?

You have not used your brain enough, friend. You have forgotten that YOU reject science because you don't believe in steady state or spontaneous generation or monera.

I do not deny any experiments or facts of science. I deny that I must dogmatically hold to certain naturalist theories where the facts do not support such theories.

Your experiment of the flaggellum for example, I do not deny natural selection, nor mutations, what I deny is a "claim" that this pathetic little adaptation somehow relates to a claim that every design came from such processes, even though the facts shows that such bacteria are fossilized, despite replicating thousands of times faster than humans.

So basically, your problem is that because I don't share your belief in naturalist theories rather than say a baramin theory, I should reject gravity?

Friend, that's so dumb, when I don't even technically reject evolution. I accept "possible" transitionals. I accept mutations exist, and natural selection, and hyper-adaptive bacteria.

So what? Why should I go one further and accept unproven things such as abiogenesis, unless I had a motive of bias towards natural solutions? Why would I deny facts of design I have been shown?

Try some thinking for a change, rather than regurgitating the same tired old refuted positions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 3:16 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Sasuke, posted 09-09-2009 11:43 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 439 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 8:01 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 426 of 687 (523287)
09-09-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by NosyNed
09-09-2009 9:19 AM


Re: There is no design
It is the case. I do not need to argue that a bird can fly through a complex mechanism with all of the correct barbules etc...

The "design" is the wings, the muscles. One can see that the function is very high. If you compare a human design, concerning flight, you will get something very inefficient. The power to weight ratio for example, will not be as good.

Now, you get a radio control helicopter with full 3D flight, but at best the energy per-flight ratio is astoundingly poor compared to a hoverfly.

Even after many years of designing, it seems the ratios in construction are exceedingly poor. We also have the facts of information being seperate to matter, ecc..

You can't really state that a butterfly has not got a different design to a hoverfly, or a giraffe hasn't got a mechanism to stop it fainting, or drowning in it's own blood.

I need only observe these things. I think evolution tries to deal with the problem of design but doesn't actually tell us anything useful about such wonderfully different yet brilliant design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:19 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by cavediver, posted 09-09-2009 11:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 432 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 1:34 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 440 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 8:13 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 427 of 687 (523288)
09-09-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by NosyNed
09-09-2009 9:19 AM


Re: There is no design
You can take your answer there if you think you have one.

I don't think I have one. There are alternative explanations to naturalism that on the face of it don't seem possible because of how human history has gone. Evolution has "won" in a sense, but if you look at it objectively, organisms will always be designed. There's no escaping the things we usually think of as design, such as efficiency, ability, high funtioning capacity, information, (alll animals are the same matter, but different morphologically).

This is all factual. It's not so much an argument as an observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:19 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Sasuke, posted 09-09-2009 11:54 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 451 of 687 (523425)
09-10-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 8:01 PM


Can't deal with all of your post/s, too buzy.

Sometimes, such as with steady-state and spontaneous generation, that new information will cause us to reject the entire structure outright. The observations were crude at best and when we finally managed to get decent observations, it became clear that our gross interpretation was based upon highly limited information.

I know you didn't say what I said to you, I merely used your "type" or argument you usually use against me, promoting a strawman of what I did not say.

My point about science, is that at the very least you allude to the fact that I do not dismiss certain theories, such as gravity, because I assume you think I am biased.

Infact, all I am is extra-tentative. This means I can believe in your experiments, and their direct results, but I won't go a step further and believe an abiogenesis happened which is beyond reason. I also don't think a biological evolution happened. If it did, fine, then I am wrong - but wrong about what? That I didn't go that extra step and believe it happened? this doesn't mean I reject the whole theory, or any facts. Technically, I do accept them because I admitt that a transitional must be "allowed" otherwise I am creating an "unconfirmable" reasoning.

so I say; "then what would a transitional look like?" Yet this doesn't mean that a species put in that genus certainly was a transitional.

Theories are accepted, and then not. At the time, you would have believed in steady state and spontaneous generation. My point is that I wouldn't have, and we now know those theories to be wrong. So you shouldn't make out that I am rejecting science, or partaking in special pleading. I believe a bariminology is more parsimonious and plausable, at this time of my life.

(notice that at other times, I believe evolution theory more plausable).

But you have said that you find the literal Genesis reading to be the most compatible. This is clearly false as even a cursory examination of the fossil record contradicts Genesis pretty much at every point. So since science and Genesis do not agree, why do you reject science in favor of Genesis?

I don't agree. I think the fossil record shows dead things. It is not really a record of anything other than that. There are reasons I don't believe this "record" contradicts Genesis, technically. But also I have problems with the scientists' consensus that it is a record. The facts I don't dispute.

I don't think the fossils show evolution. I don't think they show time. I have been told, that one fossil can have two different dates, and that those dates are majorly different. There are other arguments and points, such as polystrate fossils.

And you seem to miss the point: The claim by Behe was that the flagellum could not possibly have evolved in any way, shape, or form; that to remove any part of the process makes the entire thing fail and be of absolutely no use no matter what.

Instead, we find that the flagellum is reducible and does provide function in this reduced state.

So where is your evidence of design?

That's ad logicam. You can only say that Behe was wrong, because mike the wiz was not, has not, ever mentioned irreducible complexity. In those other threads, I shown you that the claim of the ToE, is that all lifeforms came from a common ancestor. I did not mention gods, or God.

My claim, not Behe's, is that if the ToE claims this, is it fair that an example of a bacteria flaggellum adapting to a disease, really a great example of evolution. You thought this was proof of macro evolution, but even scientists wouldn't go that far because technically they can see the logical problems with that.

Sorry I didn't read your other posts to me, the tally is becoming great, not just from you but from others, and I would have to spend my whole day on them. It's much better to stick to one topic, and discuss that one topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 8:01 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2009 7:56 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 485 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 12:27 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 452 of 687 (523427)
09-10-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 6:37 PM


Are you seriously saying that because that drawing is adapted from Haeckel's erroneous claim that during fetal development, humans actually become fish and birds, then that means the entire concept is without merit? That there is absolutely nothing to be learned from comparative embryology?

You infact shown Haeckel's picture in a fairly modern biology book, which was what I claimed. Nothing more.

I did not say nothing can be learned from embryology, I am indicating that it is not helpful to show false embryos in a biology book, without stating that such a diagram is utter falsehood.

The branchial arches in a human embryo, become tonsils, etc...anyone, whether Einstein or Bob the builder, can term them "gill slits". Does this mean that if something in an embryo of a none-human looks like a penis, I should call those "rudimentary penis", even if it becomes an arm or something?

You have to ASSUME there is a relation, when what you are looking at is a rudimentary tonsil, or ear canal, etc, it is totally disengenuous.

Oh, so close. It is not enough that you name the texts, though that's a start. The request was that you provide the titles and the complete context surrounding the references.

So now it isn't what i claimed - pictures in a book, but infact the goal posts have spread out to become, "titles and the complete context surrounding the references"?

Too late. I was bang on accurate the first time. Haeckel's pictures are indeed used in biology books. You seem to think that showing his pictures in a biology text book no disproves my claim that his pictures are in biology text books.

You "almost" turned that around on mikey. A "sorry mikey" would have been more mature of you. Sorry mikey - you didn't lie, I just jumped to conclusions about you because I thought you a liar.

Do you think there is a biogenetic law? I don't.

You need to explain why mammals have the same gill arches as fish. The fact that they develop into different structures in mammals is indicative of evolution.

I don't. You have to prove that certain rudimentary shapes are all logically "gill" arches. This means an assumption that anything that looks like a gill is infact not a branchial arch, but a gill. If it was a gill at the beginning, then it is reasonable to expect it to have a breathing function in an equally rudimentary capacity.

That mammals have branchial arches that develop into different structures, could be because, at that time of development, this rudimentary shape is somehow beneficial to development, and/or many reasons, but they were never gills anyway.

What do you expect me to do - go off of the fraudulent drawings? Perhaps back up the claim that these arches start out looking exactly the same in all mammals. If you reduce complexity, they will all look exactly the same at their rudimentary beginnings, therefore logically, that we all start out as sperm and egg could also indicate evolution. Not very powerful reasoning to me!! At the beginning, in embryos, there are similarities. This is because if you reduce a 3D letter "t" and a 3D letter "l", as they get lesser and lesser, they will start to look alike. If we only have a line left for both, they will look exactly the same.

It's called a reduction of the make-up in regards to the same matter. That is, we all are very different organisms made from the same matter, and if we all reduce and are NOT "made-up", we become more like matter, rather than something different from one another.

If we reduce embyros completely, you will get something in each embryo, still further similar and similar and even seemingly identical in parts perhaps, but what matters is that full development does not show similarities.

It's all about matter and information. We can start out with plastocine blobs, and both make-up shapes from the doh. The more complex those shapes are, the more we see the information from the designer who is creating that blob into maybe a turtle-shape. If we reduce these shapes, then they will come back to the same similar blobs of plastocine.

Listen, at one stage, embryos have almost got to look similar, because they are all cells, all organic matter, etc...You can "believe" this helps an evolution but I believe it just shows what it shows.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 6:37 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 2:59 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 455 of 687 (523430)
09-10-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by ICANT
09-10-2009 7:52 AM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
Is there 1 living creature on planet earth today that was not produced by a life form?

It's a good point you make. Furthermore, the complexity doesn't seem to reduce, at the cell. The cell is complex.

The full induction is that all lifeforms come from other lifeforms.

Does life produce life?

Yes! And the full induction of evidence shows this. Therefore this "evidence" which we hear so much about, must be regarded as relevant.

(Keep going.).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 7:52 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4659
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 456 of 687 (523431)
09-10-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by cavediver
09-10-2009 7:56 AM


You've become a very upset, and angry almost bitter guy who only curses in short posts. I think that's a shame. In truth, you are a smart and intelligent, knowledgeable guy, and I fully believe in you. I mean that - keep going in your field, and giving it your best and may God thoroughly bless you and your own in all new ways.

I'm proud of you by most standards.

It's okay - you don't have to get angry at me. I'm not out to get you. It's really is just that we very much disagree about the inferences behind the fossils. I was really only giving my quick opinion because otherwise there would never be an end to these off-shoots of different topics endlessly coming up. Perhaps in the future I can make a thread about my own worldview, like ICANTS. And if I have been mislead about fossils, then you can bet your life I will consider those mistakes and see if I should reconsider my position as largely ignorant. I admitt I don't have a great knowledge in that area but I know some things from seminars.

Kind regards, mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2009 7:56 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2009 8:32 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019