Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 235 (648002)
01-12-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by herebedragons
01-12-2012 2:48 PM


Re: So where did little Jimmy go?
Not so much "set me straight" as I am not arguing against evolution. I am just trying to make sense of some things that just don't seem straight forward to me.
I see, I misunderstood you when you wrote this:
quote:
There are still things about the ToE I don't completely buy into
I took that as you saying that there are still things about the Theory of Evolution, i.e. RM+NS, that you haven't accepted yet.
But you're not questioning the theory, itself, you're trying to get a better understanding of how the theory can explain some observed facts.
So that's good. Some honest learning
Too often when people "Question Evolution", rather than honest learning they're looking to reaffirm other beliefs by attacking the theory, itself.
Unfortunately, not a whole lot of response (not as active a topic as little Jimmy's). Maybe you can provide some insight to my questions?
Its a lot easier to talk generally about the theory than getting into specifics like you bring up. I'll have to catch up with a lot of reading before I can make a meaningful reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by herebedragons, posted 01-12-2012 2:48 PM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 167 of 235 (648041)
01-12-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Chuck77
01-12-2012 4:43 AM


Re: Oh well
Hey Chuck,
I provided an answer to question 4 here - Message 127.
Everyones answers are really great and I would love to submit them to CMI to show that this is a fine campaingn as evidenced by this thread.
As outlined in Message 110 I have already contacted CMI with regards to this campaign. I have issued an open offer for them to support their claims in open and honest debate.
I have received a reply -
quote:
Dear Mr Wain / Dear Ian,
Thanks for getting in contact and your offer of providing answers to the questions.
Please note what it says on the Question Evolution page:Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows.
Also, please look at the answers that have already been put forward (see the 3-part series on responses under Related articles below), or you could be wasting your time duplicating what someone else has done.
If your members have something to contribute that has not already been contributed, we would be happy to consider it, but we don’t intend to spend time debating what has already been covered.
If something new is contributed to your forum, we would be happy to include it under, or linked from, the Question Evolution page on creation.com, but we don’t have the time for getting involved in the EvCforum, I’m sorry (we are stretched to the limit time-wise). Because of this, we have a policy of a leaving such Internet forums to others.
We trust that our supporters will tell us of anything that needs the attention of one of our scientists (although this does not mean we get involved in third party Internet debates by proxy!).
I’m sorry for the negative response, but we can only do so much.
With kind regards,
Don Batten
This is pretty much the response I expected if any response was given at all.
They are not interested in intellectual honesty or debate. I have read through their responses sections. They do not provide any of the responses or include links to them. Basically, they reword or clump similar responses into catagories (likely to their advantage), then they offer a rebuttal with no avenue to respond. When they have offered their rebuttal, they consider that issue to be closed and covered and they have won the point.
You believe that we have not done enough to answer the questions? I was '2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award'. I may as well go for the prize again in 2012. I will start a thread in response to the questions, one at a time and answer them in full. I will do what CMI is not willing to do. I will openly debate the issues in an honest and free forum where I do not have the ability to censor or silence opposition.
I invite you to read and comment on my answer to the questions in an open and free manner. This too is a opportunity that CMI is not giving to its opposition.
This is how our side play.
The new thread will be titled -
15 questions for Evolutionists - Question 1 answered
On another note...
One thing I find really ironic with regards to the reply I received from CMI is the author of the email, Don Batton.
Here is what Don Batton had to say about Carl Bough and his 'humans lived with dinosaurs' theories -
quote:
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
(Sources :
Carl Baugh - Wikipedia
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html )
That is exactly the same thing that we are saying about his claims.
From the last paragraph with one small change -
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like *Don Batton and the people at CMI*, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Chuck77, posted 01-12-2012 4:43 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:12 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 235 (648062)
01-13-2012 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Taq
01-12-2012 11:58 AM


Re: Oh well
Tag writes:
Yes, science is a bit more complicated than "God did it". Get used to it.
Yeah tell me about it! Apperantly it's so complicated that no one can explain it...
Ahhh well. Hey, their teaching something to the kids in school right? What is it...that picture of the geologic column?
Then they use the finch beaks? Variation within a kind and pass it off as "the theory of evolution". It's quite a charade they have going.
So in the text books it'a all lies because we know variation within a kind doesn't equal what the theory really teaches does it Taq?
What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe.
Get used to it.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 01-12-2012 11:58 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by dwise1, posted 01-13-2012 3:21 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 5:50 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 01-13-2012 11:22 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 235 (648063)
01-13-2012 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Butterflytyrant
01-12-2012 6:57 PM


Re: Oh well
I'm terribly sorry to hear that Creation Ministries aka CMI did not take your request on as of course you expected them to alert the various news outlets of your request and put all else aside just for you and your supporters. Yes, quite a shame.
Maybe you can email the President of the United States next time and see if He has time to look over your next PNT for a quick critique?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-12-2012 6:57 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by dwise1, posted 01-13-2012 3:30 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 5:53 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 184 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 9:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 170 of 235 (648065)
01-13-2012 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 2:53 AM


Re: Oh well
With all due respect, please learn something already!
The ideas of how evolution works are not that complicated. How they apply to specific examples can indeed become complicated. That's no different than with physics. The basic principles of physics are simple and straight-forward, but their application to specific examples can become very complicated because of the multitude of factors that have to be applied. Eg, two bodies of different masses dropped from the same height should drop at the same velocity, as was demonstrated on the surface of the moon when a hammer and a feather were both dropped at the same time. OK, if you repeat the same experiment on the surface of the earth, then you also have to take into account atmospheric drag and other factors as well. A simple, straight-forward physics principle suddenly gets over-complicated by extraneous factors such as atmospheric drag.
So, no, it's not so complicated that "no one can explain it". But it does take a certain amount of thinking about it. So as long as you refuse to do due diligence, you're never going to understand it. Like with any other idea that exists.
So what exactly is your personal problem with the geological column? Care to explore that a bit?
And what exactly is your problem with finch beaks? More of the same?
What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe.
What evolution would predict would indeed be "kinds producing after their own kind". And that is exactly what we do observe. Do please inform us that that is not the case.
Kingdom: Animalia
Are we of the Kingdom Animalia? Are we animals? Yes we are.
Phylum: Chordata
Chordata. Are we vertabrates? Yes we are.
Class: Mammalia
Are we mammals? Yes we are.
Order: Primates
Are we primates? Yes we are.
Family: Hominidae
Are we of that family? Yes we are.
Tribe: Hominini
Are we of that tribe? Yes we are.
Subtribe: Hominina
Are we of that subtribe? Yes we are.
Genus: Homo
Are we of that genus? Yes we are.
Hello? Nested types? Hello? Hello? Hello?
Your "objections" are meaningless and amount to pure bullshit. Hello?
Get used to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 2:53 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:39 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 171 of 235 (648067)
01-13-2012 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:12 AM


Re: Oh well
OK, so CMI chose to ignore the response. Which means that they choose to ignore any response that does not agree with their own personal delusion.
They have chosen to live within their own personal delusion. Which means that they do not want to deal with reality.
You are supporting them fully. Which means that you also do not want to deal with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:12 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:42 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 235 (648068)
01-13-2012 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by dwise1
01-13-2012 3:21 AM


Re: Oh well
So what exactly is your personal problem with the geological column? Care to explore that a bit?
Well yeah sure. Does the geologic column even exist?
And what exactly is your problem with finch beaks? More of the same?
No problem at all everything they needed to adapt was in their DNA. What's your problem?
chuck writes:
What we do see is what the Bible says about kinds producing after their own kind. That we actually can observe.
dwise writes:
What evolution would predict would indeed be "kinds producing after their own kind". And that is exactly what we do observe. Do please inform us that that is not the case.
Kingdom: Animalia
Are we of the Kingdom Animalia? Are we animals? Yes we are.
Phylum: Chordata
Chordata. Are we vertabrates? Yes we are.
Class: Mammalia
Are we mammals? Yes we are.
Order: Primates
Are we primates? Yes we are.
Family: Hominidae
Are we of that family? Yes we are.
Tribe: Hominini
Are we of that tribe? Yes we are.
Subtribe: Hominina
Are we of that subtribe? Yes we are.
Genus: Homo
Are we of that genus? Yes we are.
Hello? Nested types? Hello? Hello? Hello?
Your "objections" are meaningless and amount to pure bullshit. Hello?
Get used to it.
Oh my. I don't even know what any of that means.
In english huh? English this time? Does the TOE say we all branchedd off from some sort of common anscestor? If it does then who were they? Don't say because of DNA either. That just implies a common designer. Get your own ideas. Don't steal from the Bible.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by dwise1, posted 01-13-2012 3:21 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Panda, posted 01-13-2012 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 182 by Pressie, posted 01-13-2012 8:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 01-13-2012 8:53 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 186 by Granny Magda, posted 01-13-2012 10:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 191 by Taq, posted 01-13-2012 11:29 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 199 by dwise1, posted 01-13-2012 6:31 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 235 (648069)
01-13-2012 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by dwise1
01-13-2012 3:30 AM


Re: Oh well
The reality is we are here. Nothing cannot create something. Sorry. I know some on this forum will want to talk about particles and all that nonsnese. Your smarter than that right dwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by dwise1, posted 01-13-2012 3:30 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 6:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 180 by Pressie, posted 01-13-2012 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 01-13-2012 11:25 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2012 2:19 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 235 (648078)
01-13-2012 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 2:53 AM


Re: Oh well
Yeah tell me about it! Apperantly it's so complicated that no one can explain it...
Ahhh well. Hey, their teaching something to the kids in school right? What is it...that picture of the geologic column?
Then they use the finch beaks? Variation within a kind and pass it off as "the theory of evolution". It's quite a charade they have going.
So in the text books it'a all lies because we know variation within a kind doesn't equal what the theory really teaches does it Taq?
Again, coherently?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 2:53 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 175 of 235 (648079)
01-13-2012 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:12 AM


Re: Oh well
I'm terribly sorry to hear that Creation Ministries aka CMI did not take your request on as of course you expected them to alert the various news outlets of your request and put all else aside just for you and your supporters. Yes, quite a shame.
Maybe you can email the President of the United States next time and see if He has time to look over your next PNT for a quick critique?
It was silly and naive of Butterflytyrant to suppose that creationists ask questions because they want answers.
As we have seen, they ask questions because they want to disguise lies as questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:12 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 185 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 9:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 235 (648081)
01-13-2012 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
01-13-2012 5:50 AM


Re: Oh well
Try reading it this time. It's easy to understand. Even a child could. Are you smarter than a child doc?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 5:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 6:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 235 (648083)
01-13-2012 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
01-13-2012 5:53 AM


Re: Oh well
It was silly and naive of Butterflytyrant to suppose that creationists ask questions because they want answers.
No kidding man. I'm with you. Some answers would be cool. I'm right there with you Doc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 5:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 373 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 178 of 235 (648085)
01-13-2012 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:03 AM


Re: Oh well
Try reading it this time. It's easy to understand. Even a child could. Are you smarter than a child doc?
Perhaps you overestimate yourself.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 179 of 235 (648086)
01-13-2012 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:42 AM


Re: Oh well
Nothing cannot create something. Sorry. I know some on this forum will want to talk about particles and all that nonsnese. Your smarter than that right dwise?
Ding ding ding!
Virtual Particles.
Ding ding dong?

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
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:42 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 180 of 235 (648093)
01-13-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:42 AM


Re: Oh well
Chuck77 writes:
Nothing cannot create something.
We know. Hope you realize this applies to your chosen god or gods, too.
Remember, energy can't be created, nor destroyed. It means that we couldn't have been created. Not by any kind of god or gods.
Chuck77 writes:
Sorry.
Yes we feel very sorry for you. Clinging to a bronze-age book with all those mistakes must be a bummer.
Chuck77 writes:
I know some on this forum will want to talk about particles and all that nonsnese.
Which particles? Atoms? I don't know much about physics, but I know that the Atom Theory is also "just" a scientific theory. But, it works, as the city I live in is powered by results of that theory.
Chuck77 writes:
Your smarter than that right dwise?
That's pretty much like a parrot calling a genius stupid. We laugh at it, because it is funny. Then we call the parrot pretty boy. And he repeats it, too!
You’re welcome to start a thread on "the" geological column. It is geology and not part of the ToE. In the meantime, I can provide you with a definition for a geological column as accepted and used by geologists.
Gary, M., McAfee, R., Jr, Wolf, C.L., (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C. 805pp.
Glossary of Geology writes:
(a) A composite diagram that shows in a single column the subdivisions or part or all of geologic time or the sequence of stratigraphic units of a given locality or region (the oldest at the bottom and the youngest at the top, with dips adjusted to the horizontal) so arranged as to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time and their relative positions to each other. See also columnar section. (b) The vertical or chronologic arrangement or sequence of rock units portrayed in a geologic column. See also: geologic section.---Syn. Stratigraphic column.
If you would want to, you can start a thread on it. I would be very happy to discuss the geologic column. It exists.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:42 AM Chuck77 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