Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
59 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,331 Year: 22,367/19,786 Month: 930/1,834 Week: 430/500 Day: 63/66 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
Anel Vadren
Junior Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2
From: Livermore, CA, USA
Joined: 01-06-2012


(2)
Message 1 of 235 (646707)
01-06-2012 12:57 AM


Hello!

My name is Jimmy Stephens and I am very excited to be a part of Christian Ministries International's new grass roots movement, Question Evolution! It is a bold campaign seeking to rid our schools, media, and politics of evolutionist indoctrination and spread the 15 questions which evolutionists can not adequately answer. Hopefully, you too will join CMI's campaign to refute the falsehoods of evolution. Please found out more at creation.com/question-evolution and discover the promising efforts against the pseudoscience of evolution.

Also, please check out the Question Evolution! blog and keep up-to-date about the creation versus evolution debate, the Question Evolution! movement, and the lies of evolution.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:13 AM Anel Vadren has responded
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:16 AM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2012 10:27 AM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 01-06-2012 11:00 AM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-06-2012 1:42 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2012 3:17 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 01-06-2012 3:34 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 25 by hooah212002, posted 01-06-2012 3:36 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2012 4:17 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2012 4:31 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 01-06-2012 5:24 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Omnivorous, posted 01-06-2012 6:31 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 01-06-2012 10:45 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2012 11:00 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-11-2012 1:53 AM Anel Vadren has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 2 of 235 (646709)
01-06-2012 10:09 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Question Evolution! thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 3 of 235 (646710)
01-06-2012 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Anel Vadren
01-06-2012 12:57 AM


Really?

This is obviously a hit and run, and we'll end up talking to ourselves with no further input from little Jimmy.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-06-2012 12:57 AM Anel Vadren has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2012 10:32 AM subbie has responded
 Message 8 by Panda, posted 01-06-2012 10:40 AM subbie has responded
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM subbie has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(2)
Message 4 of 235 (646714)
01-06-2012 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Anel Vadren
01-06-2012 12:57 AM


To be fair to the evolutionists, that's some pretty strong language, such as pseudo-science, and, "lies".

Even if we don't agree with evolution, it is not a pseudo-science. It is not false science as it fall in line with qualifying as a theory according to the rules. (Obviously, personally, I don't see it as a good theory, logically.)

Welcome, I like you am not evolutionist, but a lot of people here have done a lot of thinking and know all about both sides of the debate. There are a lot of ignoramuses on both sides, but generally, not here, this is a concentration of relatively informed people.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-06-2012 12:57 AM Anel Vadren has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 5 of 235 (646717)
01-06-2012 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Anel Vadren
01-06-2012 12:57 AM


Re: Welcome To Creationist Jimmy
Hi brother Jimmy. A hearty welcome to the Biblical minority constituency here at EvC. We need a few more good bonafide Biblical creationists.

The fifteen questions pretty much cover what I've been advocating for the last eight plus years here at EvC in my unique Buzsaw hypotheses. What pleases me about your cite is that it articulates what I've been asking, specifying problematic aspects of ToE.

I hope you will stay with us here at EvC and help us debate the majority secularistic membership,

If you care to read some of my stuff, just click on my username and you'll get the archived profile of it over the years. Perhaps you may wish to bump forward some of it that you may find problematic for further discussion and debate.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-06-2012 12:57 AM Anel Vadren has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 6 of 235 (646719)
01-06-2012 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
01-06-2012 10:13 AM


Re: OK OP
Really?
This is obviously a hit and run, and we'll end up talking to ourselves with no further input from little Jimmy.

Whether or not Jimmy stays with us, likely Admin sees it as a lively debatable topic. I would agree, if that's his reason for promoting it.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:13 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:38 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 7 of 235 (646722)
01-06-2012 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
01-06-2012 10:32 AM


Re: OK OP
No it isn't.

It's another opportunity for the science side to show why creos are wrong and creos to ignore what science says.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2012 10:32 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:47 AM subbie has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2057 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 8 of 235 (646727)
01-06-2012 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
01-06-2012 10:13 AM


Maybe Chuckles will 'adopt' this thread instead.

But a list of 15 questions sounds like a direct request for an unfocussed discussion on everything.

4.Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
It isn't.

9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
They aren't.

10.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
They don't.

11.How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
It didn't.

12.Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
It isn't.

15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
It isn't.

...
Well - that's 6 answered.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:13 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:48 AM Panda has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 01-06-2012 4:07 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 01-07-2012 4:24 AM Panda has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(3)
Message 9 of 235 (646741)
01-06-2012 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by subbie
01-06-2012 10:38 AM


Re: OK OP
It's hard to tell if he will aggregate wth us. I myself, in 2003, was completely ignorant and would post similar messages as I had swallowed creation without thinking. Now I have done the thought, and although I am still creationist, and disagree with the evolution, for me the interest of this debate might be to highlight the limits of science.

Is evolution a pseudo-science? Might be a better topic?

Personally, I am concerned with the limitations of inductive reasoning. It's not that evolution is science that bothers me but that with methodological naturalism comes methodologically removing any undesirable conclusions pertaining to an all-wise God. Those assumptions are fairly great. Science by definition exists to explain things empirically but some matters are not only empirical. If there is, truth to a designer, only we can't analyze this truth scientifically, is this a fault of science, or a limitation of it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:38 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:52 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 10 of 235 (646742)
01-06-2012 10:47 AM


Thread Promotion Explained
Hi all,

Should have mentioned up above, I put this in the Coffee House forum because it didn't sound like Jimmy was interested in a discussion. Keep in mind this isn't one of the science forums. If things get too weird I'll move it to Free For All. I'm working with Chuck over at Proposed New Topics to see if he's interested in a more focused thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 11 of 235 (646743)
01-06-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Panda
01-06-2012 10:40 AM


6 answers
This is a perfect opportunity for our resident creos to prove me wrong.

For anyone who disagrees with Panda's comprehensive answers to the 6 questions he's chosen, give evidence to support your position. I don't think I'm asking for much. Just evidence. If you actually believe there are "living fossils" that haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years, identify them. If you actually believe that science teaches that blind chemistry created mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality, provide citations and/or quotations of scientific papers advocating these beliefs.

Keep in mind, the key word here is evidence. Not rambling screeds. Not opinions based on last week's sermon. Evidence.

If you can't understand the difference, you can't even begin to intelligently discuss anything to do with science. Here's your chance to pony up.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Panda, posted 01-06-2012 10:40 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:54 AM subbie has responded
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 01-06-2012 6:20 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 235 (646744)
01-06-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
01-06-2012 10:47 AM


Re: OK OP
Is evolution a pseudo-science? Might be a better topic?

Wonderful. I'd be delighted to explore that with you for a while.

What are the characteristics that you generally look for to determine whether something is pseudo-science? I'm not asking you why you think the ToE is, I'm asking for an abstract list that we can use to evaluate any random field of inquiry.

Conversely, what do you see as the defining characteristics of science?

Please, take your time putting together answers to these two questions. I'm in no rush.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:47 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:58 AM subbie has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 13 of 235 (646745)
01-06-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by subbie
01-06-2012 10:48 AM


Re: 6 answers
I would add, what is evidence? Logically speaking?

It is the consequent in a modus ponen. The antecedant is represented as the theory or postulation. The falsification evidence is the modus tollens rejection of the consequent.

As far as I am aware, there is an ignorance of evolution by lot of creationists, and what it says, but there is also an ignorance of what evidence is. Whether it is qualitative or quantative.

An induction of confirmation evidence is inductive reasoning because unless you own 100% of the evidence, epistemologically and logically speaking, you can not know or deduce respectively, you can only proceed via abductive inference. According to your JTB, justified-true belief, you can justifiably believe evolution happened, depending upon how compelling your evidence is.

But to discuss the actual evidence is something as a creationist, I can no longer do.

I tried, several times, to explain what evidence is, and how complicated the logical variables are, I can't be a punch-bag for evolutionists forever.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:48 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:08 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2012 4:15 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 14 of 235 (646747)
01-06-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
01-06-2012 10:52 AM


Re: OK OP
I do not think evolution is pseudo-science, as I believe I stated.

Conversely, what do you see as the defining characteristics of science?

Empirical, neutral, methodological investigation generally are the defining characteristics.

Problems arise between operational science and historical science, respectively, in that you can repeat and experiment with the latter, but the former is limited.

My problems with evolution are logical ones, but as I have said, it seems pointless to try and explain what I mean.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:52 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 6:16 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 15 of 235 (646748)
01-06-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Anel Vadren
01-06-2012 12:57 AM


Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Natural selection is not taught as 'evolution' as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life. It is taught as a very important part of evolution which combined with other factors explains the diversity of life.

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

I'll answer this question in as broad a stroke as the question itself is asked. Mutation.

Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

They are designed. By a process that is not intelligent. And that's what they look like. To almost all biologists.

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

There are no fossils at all expected under evolutionary theory. They just happen to exist, quite happily giving testimony to the natural history of life.

I'm not sure you are really interested in the answers, but they are out there if you take the time. These questions are set up to look like there is some serious doubt over evolution, when this is not in reality the case.

The answer 'evolution did it' is equally as good as 'god did it'. Only there is some evidence that evolution actually exists. And usually the answers are much more detailed than 'evolution did it'. Creationism never gives details for how malaria came to exist in the world, other than by some divine will. This doesn't explain how, it doesn't explain how divine will works, what the mechanisms for actualising that will, or propose any evidence that there is such a thing as divine will.

If you actually want in depth answers to any of the 15 questions, you are free to start a thread (1 for each question, if you please) and we can really get to grips with them. One thing that creationists are often criticised for is the 'Gish Gallop' which is throwing lots of things out there hoping something will stick. This question list looks like a Gish Gallop to me. My prediction is that therefore you will shy away from in depth discussion about any of the questions listed, and hope to score rhetorical points by just waving the list around.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-06-2012 12:57 AM Anel Vadren has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 11:35 AM Modulous has 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