Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 211 of 235 (648267)
01-14-2012 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 7:06 AM


Re: Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
Portillo hasn't posted to this thread , whilst on the Australia thread, I have asked him again and again to tell me what his problem is with the evolutionist position. He refuses to do so. Nonetheless, I seem to recall that Portillo has "cheered" at least one of my messages on that thread, so he's clearly a bit thicker skinned than you.
Stop trying to move the attention away from yourself. Argue the points made by those who are being respectful or quit complaining about mudslinging of which you are one of the prime participants.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 7:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 235 (648270)
01-14-2012 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 6:53 AM


Re: Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
Really? So why is evolution so hard to explain if an 8th grader can understand it but crashforg says it takes extensive research.
Understanding evolution is easy. Any child or non-creationist could do it. This is why it was so easy to answer CMI's questions.
Retailing even a fraction of the evidence for evolution would take a book. A large book.
Tell you what, when I've finished writing my textbook on geology, maybe I'll do evolution. In the meantime there are textbooks on evolution already, perhaps you could read one.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 6:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 213 of 235 (648272)
01-14-2012 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 1:55 AM


Re: Oh well
Chuck77 writes:
Percy writes:
Your approach to opposing theories you don't accept seems to be to maintain a lack of awareness of things we already know.
For instance?
I was very specific about what I was replying to - I quoted you asking if the geologic column even exists, so there's your "for instance," right in the very message you replied to. Instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you questioned its existence. You seem to be letting ignorance be your guide. As others keep noting, your messages are remarkably free of meaningful content.
Instead of replying on this meta-topic, why not just respond meaningfully to what Dwise1 was saying about the geologic column in Message 170 and before.
We have a theory too.
Yes, we know you think you have a theory, we haven't forgotten, you don't need to keep reminding us. But theories are based upon evidence, something we keep trying to engage you in but also something you seem remarkably reluctant to talk about, almost as if you only know what you believe scientifically but not why you believe it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 1:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2012 7:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 214 of 235 (648274)
01-14-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Percy
01-14-2012 7:42 AM


Re: Oh well
I was very specific about what I was replying to - I quoted you asking if the geologic column even exists, so there's your "for instance," right in the very message you replied to. Instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you questioned its existence.
Well instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you asserted its existence. You and Chuck both seem to be committing what philosophers call a "category error".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 7:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 7:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 215 of 235 (648276)
01-14-2012 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2012 7:45 AM


Re: Oh well
Uh, okay, that's an interesting perspective. The actual discussion involving the geologic column was between Chuck and Dwise1.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2012 7:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2012 8:06 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 235 (648277)
01-14-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 1:59 AM


Re: Oh well
You are under the impression I am here to try and impress you?
No Chuck. I've already described my impression of you in the next to last post I'll ever address to you.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 1:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 217 of 235 (648280)
01-14-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
01-14-2012 7:54 AM


Re: Oh well
Hi Percy,
Personally, I'd be interested to see how Chuck answers the following question;
Does the Periodic Table of the Elements exist?
The Geologic Column exists in the same way that the Periodic Table does; as an abstraction used to make sense of certain facts. The fact that there exist several places where near complete matches for the column can be found in the actual rocks only serves to confirm the column's usefulness as a model.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 01-14-2012 7:54 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2184 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 218 of 235 (648307)
01-14-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 1:55 AM


Re: Oh well
We have the same fossil record to look at. Creationists say it supports Creationsim. Same evidence. It's there for everyone.
Except that creationists are forced to deny or misrepresent a lot of that evidence, as it otherwise contradicts rather than supports creationism.
Common designer instead of common ancestor. No transitional fossils.
There is an example of denying evidence. There are lots of transitional fossils. This is well documented in the Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200. Here is one of the examples:
Unfortunately you'd have to do some research and study to understand this example, so most likely you'll resort to the standard creationist tactic of denying the evidence, or misrepresenting it somehow.
We have a theory too. Common designer. The fossil record, the flood, the ice age etc.
When there are competing ideas, empirical evidence is used to test them. Creation "theory" has been tested and found to be contradicted by that evidence. There are transitionals, and there was no global flood during human times. There certainly was no ice age within the past 6,000 years. And there is good evidence for evolution rather than a common designer--there is simply no evidence at all for supernatural critters. That is a religious belief, not something that has been supported by evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 1:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 2:25 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 221 by Pressie, posted 01-16-2012 4:01 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2184 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 219 of 235 (648410)
01-15-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Coyote
01-14-2012 11:05 AM


Re: Oh well
...so most likely you'll resort to the standard creationist tactic of denying the evidence, or misrepresenting it somehow.
It seems I omitted one important creationist tactic: ignoring the evidence.
It has been well over a day and there has been no response to the evidence I presented on transitionals...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Coyote, posted 01-14-2012 11:05 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Coyote, posted 01-21-2012 9:02 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 220 of 235 (648412)
01-15-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 6:53 AM


Re: Chuck Refuses to Debate Like an Adult
I think Granny was saying he knew more about biology when he was eight than you do now. He made no mention of knowing more about ToE.
When I was eight I had no idea about evolution, but I knew that animals had Latin names.
Let me ask you, aside from web sites, what academic reading have you done into biology and ToE?

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 207 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 6:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied

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


Message 221 of 235 (648487)
01-16-2012 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Coyote
01-14-2012 11:05 AM


Re: Oh well
Coyote writes:
Except that creationists are forced to deny or misrepresent a lot of that evidence, as it otherwise contradicts rather than supports creationism
Or telling outright porkies about the evidence, as is witnessed by denying the existence of transitional fossils. That's not "interpreting the evidence differently" at all. Stating that "transitional fossils don't exist" is not denying or misrepresenting, it's telling untruths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Coyote, posted 01-14-2012 11:05 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 222 of 235 (648701)
01-17-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 1:55 AM


Re: Oh well
We have the same fossil record to look at. Creationists say it supports Creationsim.
I can grab a rock and claim it supports the existence of Leprechauns if I want. Anyone can say anything they want. Demonstrating that something is true is another ball game entirely. So why don't you show us how creationists have demonstrated that the fossil record supports their claims? A good place to start would be to tell us what a transitional fossil should look like so that we can determine if they really exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 1:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 880 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(4)
Message 223 of 235 (648722)
01-17-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Chuck77
01-14-2012 2:52 AM


Re: CMI
Wow....and you lot accuse me of being a troll??? This is rich. I just went through this entire thread and ole chucky boy hasn't uttered one iota of evidence and the rest of you have went to great lengths to provide it.
Good show chuck old chap. Keep it up. jeebus would be proud of your ignorance.

Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Chuck77, posted 01-14-2012 2:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2184 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 224 of 235 (649263)
01-21-2012 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Coyote
01-15-2012 2:25 PM


Bump
Another bump for Chuck77.
Paging Chuck. Paging Chuck77.
Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 2:25 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 225 of 235 (649441)
01-23-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by bluegenes
01-06-2012 4:17 PM


Re: Quick brief answers to quick brief questions.
I like these answers. I would like to add to 9.:
quote:
9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Who expected which fossils to be discovered when? In a non-evolutionary world, there should be no transitionals. The transitions in form that we have discovered confirm that our biosphere is evolutionary.
"...or that we have an intelligent designer very keen to cover its tracks."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2012 4:17 PM bluegenes 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