Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
103 online now:
DrJones*, Tanypteryx, vimesey, xongsmith (4 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 577/794 Week: 68/135 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 142 of 257 (894005)
04-28-2022 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by candle2
04-28-2022 11:24 AM


I hadn't looked in on this thread in quite some time and didn't realize the topic had shifted from cosmology to biology.

candle2 writes:

Evolution is neither a logical nor a consistent theory.

What do you see as illogical or inconsistent?

The theory (which is a a stretch of the imagination to
even call it a theory) is not based on empirical science.

Why do you think this?

There is only one type of evolution that has even a tiny
hint of science behind it. And that is microevolution.

Even microevolution isn't true evolution. It is nothing
more than changes in gene frequencies within a species.

Changes in gene frequency in a population over time is the definition of microevolution.

No new information is acquired.

How is a mutation not new information?

All finches in the Galapagos are still finches.

If you think Darwin claimed speciation when he wrote about the finches, you're mistaken.

All the different breeds of dogs are still just dogs.

And all dogs are still just wolves. All dogs and wolves are the same species, Canis lupus.

One can say that minute changes over eons of time can lead
to the creation of new species/kind, but that belief
is based on faith, not science.

Do you write "species/kind" because you believe they are synonyms? I only ask because a definition of kind has never been offered before.

Faith is a religion.

I think you were probably trying to say something else, but I'm not sure what.

And religion has no place in the classroom.

More specifically, religion shouldn't be taught in public school science class.

Isolation can lead to speciation, which might lead to
some animals of the same kind no longer being
capable of reproducing, but this is a loss of
information.

Wouldn't an isolated population experience mutations? Aren't mutations new information?

Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).

Speciation has been observed taking place when generation times are short in both the plant and animal kingdoms. Human lifetimes aren't long enough to observe speciation when generation times are longer.

Humans have no transitional fossils, when we should
have tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions.

Just as every photo of a child growing up is transitional, so is every fossil. Species are actually snapshots in time of reproductively isolated populations. For instance, examining more and more ancient Homo erectus fossils reveals increasingly archaic features, and there's an arbitrariness to where one draws the line between Homo erectus and what came before.

Some say that complex chemicals created life. And, I
say prove it. Replicate the process. Guess work isn't
science.

You're wandering away from evolution now and into the origin of life, but anyway, we don't know how life originated. Is it your position that what science doesn't know today must have a divine origin? Are dark matter, dark energy, quantum wave functions and what lies beyond the standard model of particle physics all divine?

The facts are all on my side.

I don't think you've mentioned an actual fact yet, except accidentally when you argued incorrectly about microevolution.

I assume that ending your lines early with a linefeed is a stylistic preference, but if not then realize you can just keep typing and the lines will automatically wrap.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 150 of 257 (894130)
05-02-2022 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


candle2 writes:

Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

You're getting a lot of criticism for repeatedly claiming this despite being told multiple times that this isn't the way evolution works, but I haven't read the whole thread. Is that true, that you keep claiming that evolution holds that one "kind" of animal can produce a different "kind?"

An additional problem is that "kind" doesn't have a definition. Even you put it in quotes. You either need to define "kind" in a precise manner, or you have to use the word species.

I wonder if you're just expressing yourself imprecisely. Are you actually asking for empirical proof of one species gradually changing over time through many generations into a different species?

If so, then as I explained in my previous post, there is good evidence of this, but only for species with relatively short generation times. Species change for longer generation times takes longer than human lifetimes.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 6:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 152 of 257 (894133)
05-02-2022 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by dwise1
05-02-2022 6:35 PM


Thanks for that summary. A lot of the time candle2 is saying something we all agree with, that the offspring of a species are always the same species, but he says it in a way that makes clear he thinks we don't believe that. If he really ignores responses then there seems little point in posting to him.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 6:35 PM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 05-02-2022 7:51 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 158 of 257 (894148)
05-03-2022 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by dwise1
05-02-2022 9:28 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
dwise1 writes:

Indeed, there is no inherent conflict between God and evolution.

The Bible tells us that God created all living things according to their kinds, meaning that a kind produces it's own kind. Candle2 also believes that a kind produces its own kind. And in a biological context, we all believe that a species produces its own species. So we all believe the same thing consistent with God and biology.

What we additionally believe is something not covered by the Bible, and that's that when a species produces its own species that it isn't a perfect copy of that species. All offspring differ from their parents, even if only minutely. This means that the species produced a thousand generations from now might not be the same species because of the accumulation of tiny changes in the form of mutations. Like a game of telephone, the message produced at the end of the line may little resemble the one at the beginning because each attempt to pass the message on often includes a tiny change.

But I think now that candle2 may only be here to post his viewpoint many times, not for discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 9:28 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2022 3:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 164 of 257 (894164)
05-04-2022 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by dwise1
05-03-2022 3:09 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
dwise1 writes:

But I think now that candle2 may only be here to post his viewpoint many times, not for discussion.

You've only just now figured that out?

I rejoined this thread less than a week ago after a long absence. Does that seem slow on the uptake to you?

And how does that make him any different from any other creationist? Do you know of any creationists who are not just like candle2?

I judge everyone as individuals.

Do you know of any creationists who are open to discussion and not "only here to post his viewpoint many times"? I cannot think of any, but maybe you can though I doubt that their number would come close to exceeding your right hand's ability to count them.

They are not a bunch of clones.

The Bible tells us that God created all living things according to their kinds, meaning that a kind produces it's own kind. Candle2 also believes that a kind produces its own kind. And in a biological context, we all believe that a species produces its own species. So we all believe the same thing consistent with God and biology.

No, we most definitely do not all believe the same thing. candle2 and his ilk believe quite the opposite, that there is insurmountable conflict between evolution and God that can only be resolved by killing evolution.

I'm seeing more and more of this kind of behavior here, and it distresses me. This is not who this place is, or at least it isn't the type of place I set out to build. I posted about a specific subtopic, noting that we all believe the same thing with regard to kinds and species reproducing the same kinds and species, and you pounced on that because we don't all believe the same thing generally, which isn't remotely what I said.

Lies to justify any act. Lies which must be called out.

Just be sure the lies you're calling out are the one actually expressed. Don't go, "Oh, you're a creationist, therefore your guilty of any creationist lie I happen to choose."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2022 3:09 PM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by dwise1, posted 05-06-2022 10:41 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 178 of 257 (894236)
05-07-2022 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by candle2
05-07-2022 11:29 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
Out of the last 51 replies to you you've replied to only 8. I see that what people have been saying about you is true. I see no point in responding to you since you're unlikely to respond, and the few times you have responded to people you haven't addressed the evidence and arguments they've presented.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 11:29 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 6:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 186 of 257 (894247)
05-08-2022 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by candle2
05-07-2022 6:00 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
candle2 writes:
Perhaps, it isn't fair, and I don't mean it that way.
But, you need to u/s that because someone hasn't
replied doesn't mean that they have dismissed
your side of the argument.
When you almost always ignore what people say, and you do it consistently over a couple months, then you really are ignoring what people say. You're not just busy.
However, I do read the replies.
Do you, though? You make points, ignore the responses, then make the same points again. This is your modus operandi. If you're reading anything it has no apparent effect on you. By ignoring people's points you force them to make the same points again and again, and you usually ignore them each time they're made and remade.
I am still involved with a good deal of stuff, and I
can't just ignore everything else.
This discussion board is part of "everything else," and you're ignoring that part of "everything else." This isn't the one part of your life that you get to treat like shit so that you don't ignore the rest of it.
But I don't believe you're ignoring people here because you're busy. I think you're failing to address the issues people are raising because you have no answers. Sometimes you do answer an issue, but it's quickly rebutted, and you're only response seems to be to repeat the original rebutted answer again. Which is what people find so frustrating, since it is obvious you're not listening to anything they say. Note that the complaint isn't that you don't agree, but that you never engage with the arguments and evidence, whether you agree or not.
People have issued some pretty serious criticisms of both you and your views. You apparently choose to spend your time typing long messages that ignore these criticisms.
Perhaps, I am wrong to post at all since I can't seem
to find the time required to address everyone.
Don't kid yourself. It isn't necessary to address everyone. That's not the complaint. The complaint is that you're failing to address almost anyone and almost anything they say. When you reply to only 8 out of 51 messages you have a serious problem. Where's your answer to dwise1's polystrate fossil posts (Message 171, Message 172 and Message 173)? Where's the answer to ringo's challenge to your claim that your views possess scientific qualities (Message 170)? Where's your answer to the posts challenging your views on one kind of animal producing another kind (many posts, but for example Message 151).
You post fairly long messages. You obviously have time to spend here. Spend it responding to people's evidence and arguments instead of whatever it is you think you're doing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 6:00 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by candle2, posted 05-08-2022 9:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 190 of 257 (894251)
05-08-2022 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by candle2
05-08-2022 8:48 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
candle2 writes:
At least the authors of the Holy Bible received their
knowledge straight from the Creator.
Since you're such a big fan of observational science, perhaps you can describe the observations made by the holy authors, the ones that told them it was God they were talking to.
By the way, all non-theoretical science is observational. If you don't observe then you can't see the evidence from the experiment (e.g., what happened when you mixed two different solutions in a test tube) or from the gathered evidence (the fossils collected at a dig, which you'll later study in detail thereby making even more observations) or the gathered data (pulling a magnetometer behind a boat to measure sea floor magnetization).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by candle2, posted 05-08-2022 8:48 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 191 of 257 (894252)
05-08-2022 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by candle2
05-08-2022 9:45 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
candle2 writes:
Percy, I don't ignore what people say.
Ignoring what people say is exactly what you do. Claiming you don't do it doesn't suddenly change the reality. If you're not ignoring people then please explain why, for example, you're still claiming that one kind of animal can produce another?
However, there is no need to reply to assumptions.
There's a need to reply to everything where you want people to know your thinking. How is anyone to know you see something as an assumption unless you tell them? Silence doesn't communicate anything. How do you know you're right that it's an assumption unless you discuss it with the person?
I deal only in facts.
The evidence says you stay as far away as you can from facts.
Never in recorded history has one kind of animal evolved
into another kind of animal--whether it was by punctuated
equilibrium, or slowly over eons.
Plants can evolve, too, but anyway, you've been repeating this while ignoring the examples of speciation provided to you, and also ignoring information about how long speciation takes for any but species with short generation times, like bacteria.
I know that some kinds, because of isolation or mutations
lose the ability to procreate with others of the same kind,
but they are still of the same kind. They have never been
observed to become anything else.
You've been asked repeatedly to define "kind" and have ignored all such requests.
True evolution would for example be a cat evolving into a
dog. You don't have this.
This is an example of information you've ignored. You've already been told more than once it would take many human lifetimes for a species as complex as a cat to evolve into a new species (it wouldn't evolve into a dog - that's absurd).
I give observable examples of how polystrata fossils
come to be. And, evolutionists reject the crystal clear
evidence in favors of how it might have happened.
And you were rebutted multiple times and ignored the rebuttals. Use the quoting feature, quote what someone said about polystrate fossils that you think is wrong, then describe what is wrong about it. All you're doing is repeating your incorrect arguments over and over again.
The eruption at MSH led to the formation of numerous
levels of strata, over forty feet high, in just a matter of
days.
Yes, volcanoes tend to deposit a great deal of lava and ash in a short period of time. This has been known about volcanos for thousands of years and comes as no surprise. Mount St. Helens is not unusual in this respect.
Years ago one could by these cubes at Walmart that
contained water and sand of different size and color.
one could shake the cube and mix up the sand. When
the sand was allowed to settle it always sorted the
sand by weight and size, just like the water in a global
flood did. Observable science.
The strata in the geological column is the exact opposite of sorting by weight and size. Layers of shale, slate, limestone and sandstone of varying density and grain size alternate throughout the geological column.
A global flood is the best explanation of how great heaps
of fossils were deposited.
Why do you think a global flood would deposit fossils in "heaps"?
Only in some places are fossils in "heaps", in most places they are not.
​I am the only person here posting my side of the issue.
And, I do have some time to post here. However, it is
limited.
Take your time. No one's rushing you. The complaint isn't about the time you're taking. It's about how little attention you pay to what people say.
But, I will address your statements after that. I will read all your
posts and reply to them. Trust me.
You've had a couple months to prove to everyone that you're not worthy of trust. No one's going to trust you now just because you ask them to. If you want anyone's trust you'll have to earn it by keeping things you commit to.
And don't hand me this pity thing about cataracts. Half the people I know have had cataracts removed. It's no big deal. I hope you chose both your doctor and your focal point wisely.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by candle2, posted 05-08-2022 9:45 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 203 of 257 (894417)
05-15-2022 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by candle2
05-13-2022 2:02 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
From your previous Message 189:
candle2 writes:
Percy, I don't ignore what people say.
I replied that ignoring people is exactly what you do. You ignored it.
I'm an idiot, but I'm going to reply to this one, too.
Unless you have a good reason for your short lines, I'm going to throw away your formatting from now on.
Dwise, you keep saying that I have the concept of evolution wrong. Regardless of how I state it you
and the other keep saying no; that is not how it happened.
You haven't described evolution accurately yet.
I want you to state step-by-step how it has unfolded over the billions of years. I would also like for you to list your absolute proofs. If you cannot provide proof, please state that it an assumption.
I want you to describe step-by-step how religion has unfolded over the thousands of years, and I want you to list your absolute proofs. Anything you can't prove must be an assumption.
You seem to be the most deceived among the evolutionists on this board.
You seem to be the most confounded among creationists on this board. Dwise1 understands evolution in pretty much the same way as everyone else here who approaches the world from a scientific standpoint.
If you think it came about by theistic evolution, please say so. If you think that life came about by, for instance, chemical reactions, then you also need to explain the evolution of chemicals.
I think you're confusing evolution with the origin of life. We know a great deal about evolution, much less about the origin of life, though what evidence we do have is of a natural origin.
There is no need for me to make assumptions about how the evolutionists believe it came about. Once I know I will stick to that guideline.
The process of evolution is well understood, and it's been explained to you at least several times. Why are you asking again?
When you and the other evolutionists say that you know for a fact that evolution is true, I then want to ask:
I doubt very much that anyone here has ever said words to the effect that they know for a fact evolution is true. They're much more likely to have said something like that the evidence tells us that the process of evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth throughout time, and that we observe evolution in action today.
Do you know all that there is to know about the universe?
You're making the identical mistake that Dredge just made over at Do scientists know how evolution works?, confusing not knowing everything with not knowing anything.
Since we know so little, how can we possibly know what happened 4.5 billion years ago, or 1 billion years ago, or 100 million years ago, or even 10,000 years ago?
We know what we have evidence for.
My ophthalmologist advised me to refrain from staring at a lighted screen for extended periods, especially for the next two weeks, but I would like to read your reply.
Why? If history is any guide you won't be replying to anything he says in reply.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by candle2, posted 05-13-2022 2:02 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 9:00 AM Percy has replied
 Message 207 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 12:39 PM Percy has replied
 Message 213 by dwise1, posted 05-17-2022 4:17 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 205 of 257 (894473)
05-17-2022 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by candle2
05-17-2022 9:00 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
candle2 writes:
Percy, you and several others have asked for proof that God (currently consisting of the Father and Jesus).
I would never ask you for proof of God. I think you're misinterpreting where I mimicked your absurd request about evolution with an equally absurd request about your religion, this here:
I want you to state step-by-step how it has unfolded over the billions of years. I would also like for you to list your absolute proofs. If you cannot provide proof, please state that it an assumption.

I want you to describe step-by-step how religion has unfolded over the thousands of years, and I want you to list your absolute proofs. Anything you can't prove must be an assumption.
Since I never asked for proof of God, I'll disregard the portions of your post on this topic, which means I'll have to disregard all of it.
I will continue in a few hours.
If you mean about proving God, please don't. Please reply to the messages you've been ignoring, most recently Message 191 and Message 203. You said, "I don't ignore what people say," but you continue to do exactly that. Not very considerate for someone who claims following God's example is so important to him.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 9:00 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 4:53 PM Percy has replied
 Message 232 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 11:28 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 210 of 257 (894485)
05-17-2022 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by candle2
05-17-2022 12:39 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
Clearly you didn't read my message. I said I would never ask you for proof of God, and that I thought you had misinterpreted where I mimicked your absurd request about evolution with an equally absurd request about your religion, this here:
I want you to state step-by-step how it has unfolded over the billions of years. I would also like for you to list your absolute proofs. If you cannot provide proof, please state that it an assumption.

I want you to describe step-by-step how religion has unfolded over the thousands of years, and I want you to list your absolute proofs. Anything you can't prove must be an assumption.
Since I never asked for anything about God I'll disregard the portions of your post that deal with that topic, which means all of it.
Please reply to the messages you've been ignoring, most recently Message 191 and Message 203. You said, "I don't ignore what people say," but you continue to do exactly that. Not very considerate for someone who claims following God's example is so important to him.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 12:39 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 227 of 257 (894508)
05-18-2022 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by candle2
05-17-2022 4:53 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
Percy, you still haven't offered one thing that supports evolution.
You're posting religious screeds about God, Jesus and the Bible and are expecting replies about evolution? You are very strange.
In fairness, I looked over your post. I keep looking for hard core evidence, but what I find is nothing but assumptions.
There were two posts, Message 191 and Message 203. Had you actually read either one of them you would know they contain no attempt to present evidence of evolution. Mostly they didn't address evolution at all, just pointed out your errors. Let us review the highlights, first from Message 191:
  1. You mostly ignore what people say, which you've just done again.
  2. You do not deal in facts. Mostly you avoid facts as much as possible.
  3. You said animals don't evolve, so I mentioned that you left out plants.
  4. You've been ignoring that people have been telling you that speciation takes a long time on human timescales for any species but those with very short generation times.
  5. You've been ignoring all requests to define "kind" but insist on using the word anyway.
  6. You incorrectly claimed that a cat evolving into a dog would be an example of evolution. It isn't, plus it would take many human lifetimes for a new species to evolve from cats (and it wouldn't be a dog).
  7. Your claims about polystrate fossils (not polystrata fossils) have been shown wrong and instead of responding you just keep repeating your erroneous claims.
  8. You claimed Mount St. Helen's deposited many layers of strata. But it's a fairly typical volcano that did what many very active volcanos do, deposit a great deal of lava and ash, not "numerous levels of strata."
  9. You claimed the strata of the geologic column are ordered by weight and grain size. This couldn't be further from the truth. Layers of shale, slate, limestone, sandstone and pelagic layers of varying density and grain size alternate throughout the geological column.
  10. You claimed most fossils are found in heaps, so I pointed out that that's not true. Only some fossils are found in heaps. Most are not. And what makes you think that a global flood would deposit fossils in heaps? That's something rapidly flowing water might do, not a global flood above the highest mountains.
  11. You said, "Trust me." I pointed out that in the months you've been here you've fostered a strong air of distrust because you either misrepresent what people say or ignore it entirely while continually repeating errors about which you're often corrected.
Moving on to Message 203:
  1. You again claimed you don't ignore what people say, and I pointed out that that's exactly what you do. In fact, it's what you mostly do. The latest example involving me is Message 210, whose content you completely ignored in your reply.
  2. You have yet to describe evolution accurately. You can't disprove what you don't understand.
  3. Dwise1 does not have a different understanding of evolution from everyone else here. His conception of evolution is pretty much in line with everyone else's here.
  4. You keep confusing evolution with the origin of life.
  5. The evidence tells us not only that evolution has happened but also a great deal about how it has happened. Fossils tell us what happened, and genetics tells us how.
  6. You confused not knowing everything with not knowing anything.
  7. You asked how we could know what happened millions and billions of years ago. I replied that it depends upon what evidence survived from that long ago. Where there is evidence of past events, no matter from how long ago, we have a chance of being able to figure out what happened.
True science cannot be built on assumptions. There is not one thing connected to evolution that is connected to real science.
You keep throwing around terms like "assumptions" and "not real science" without providing a shred of evidence. If you're participating in this discussion scientifically you would have some evidence. Instead, the best you can muster is to cast unsupported derogatories about.
Evolution is a fantasy land, consisting of Perhaps; maybe; it is likely; there's a good possibility; etc....
And there's a perfect example of an unsupported claim. Are you under some God delusion where you believe that if you merely declare something that that makes it so? Do you not feel you are obligated like the rest of humanity to support what you say?
Life doesn't come from non-life. It has never been shown that it does. And, you know this. Stop pretending that you don't know this.
You're again confusing evolution with the origin of life. Darwin's book was called The Origin of Species, not the origin of life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 4:53 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 244 of 257 (894582)
05-22-2022 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by candle2
05-21-2022 9:50 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
candle2 writes:
Dwise (post 198), don't play dumb. When you talk of evolution you believe in the "leached from a rock organism" to every animal/organism alive today.
What are you talking about? No one who accepts evolution thinks of it in this way, and even less likely describes it this way.
Isolation has nothing to do with this.
Why did you say this? Is this your God complex talking again where you believe if you say it is must be so?
Every concept that evolutionists have invented are methodically being destroyed by the truth.
You and truth have only a casual relationship.
Remember when wide-eyed evolutionists strutted around acting stupid by pretending that vestigial organs proved evolution?
None of us remember this, since it never happened. It was creationists who brought up vestigial organs as proof against evolution, arguing that if evolution were true they wouldn't be there since they had no purpose. And you seem to know this because you go on to say:
The coccyx, appendix, body hair, tonsils, wisdom teeth, ete.., they screamed, serve no purpose. These organs are now useless, and are evolving away.
If evolution isn't true, why are you arguing that anything is evolving, even if it's to evolve away?
If these organs serve no purpose then why do evolutionists say they evolved in the first place?
None of the organs you named serve no purpose. They have different roles or less important roles, but not no roles at all.
The fact is that all these organs were designed for specific purposes.
They were variations that were selected for because they contributed to greater reproductive success.
I won't tell you what these purposes are unless you ask. I want to see if you are really ignorant of these design purposes.
My guess is we're all, including yourself, completely ignorant of design purposes, since there's no evidence for them. What we do know a great deal about is selective pressures, which is what you're really referring to.
These same evolutionists ranted and raved about VO in animals: such as flightless birds, and whales pelvis bones.
Who was it that was ranting and raving? Let's see some of this ranting and raving prose?
While the wings of flightless birds and the pelvic bones of whales no longer serve much of their original purpose, they do have some useful functions.
And again, I won't tell you their respective design purposes unless you admit that you just can't figure them out--that their usage is above your intelligence level.
People who actually know things are eager to share them. People who play coy like this are usually hiding their ignorance.
Remember how Darwin and his blind followers swore to high heaven that transitional fossils would eventually be found, and that these fossils would prove their weak hypothesis of evolution true?
Man! The joke is on them. Can you say Duh?
This is a strange thing to say. Tons of transitional fossils have been identified, and every organism, living and dead, is transitional anyway.
Oh yeah. In the year 2001, the 101 biology textbooks at Murray State (and numerous other places)were still using Hackel's fraudulent embryos illustration. Talk about dishonesty.
The larger issue is Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." It was largely abandoned by scientists by the 1950's, about 70 years ago. That it managed to live on in textbooks for a while is unfortunate.
Isn't it ludicrous to think that homologous structures are more indicative of common descent than they are of a common designer?
Why do you say this?
Why would blind and random evolution lead to Improvement?
It is mutations that are blind and random. Selection is not blind and random at all because it is specific to the environment. Selection produces differential reproductive success where organisms with favorable mutations for the current environment are more likely to survive to produce offspring which in turn makes favorable mutations more and more common, thereby bringing about genetic change (changing allele frequency in a population).
There is not a law that says this is a requirement. There is not one law in nature that states complex organs can be constructed little by little; generation after generation.
Without getting into a discussion of the differences between hypotheses, theories and laws, the evidence tells us that gradual genetic change over time produced by mutations and affected by selection causes species change. This is the theory of evolution.
One can believe this if one wishes to do so. But, I would rather stick with real science.
Nothing you've said since you've been here contains any science. A number of your posts are mostly religion. For some reason it's important to you that evolution be wrong in order to protect your religious beliefs.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 9:50 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 247 of 257 (894589)
05-22-2022 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by candle2
05-21-2022 11:28 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
candle2 writes:
Percy, I have already stated what a "Biblical kind" is
You are quite the liar. I hope for your sake that your Christian theology is a crock, because if it's not then you're definitely not going to the good place.
The fact of the matter is that the words "Biblical" and "kind" appear in only one of your messages in this thread. Care to guess which message? Let me save you the trouble. It's this message right here, the one where you're claiming you already defined "Biblical kind."
But maybe you're thinking of Message 136 where you appeared to liken "kind" to "species". I asked you if that was the case in my reply in Message 142, but as is often the case, you didn't answer.
So why don't you stop lying and making it up as you go along while ignoring everything everyone says in response. You're not fooling anyone, and you're giving Christianity a bad name. God's not going to say, "Well, sure, he lied constantly, but at least it was while arguing against evolution, so I guess he's good to go. Beam him up!"
And now you're on to Noah's flood? That's geology, not biology. It's bad enough that you drifted into biology in a cosmology thread, but it seems you can't stick to a single topic. Please take flood discussion to the Geology and the Great Flood forum.
You're still ignoring most of my messages, so what follows is a distillation of an earlier summary I provided of stuff you're ignoring.
The two posts main posts you're ignoring are Message 191 and Message 203. Though you claim to have read them, like most things you say that is untrue. Had you actually read either one of them you would know that unlike what you claimed they made no attempt to present evidence of evolution. Mostly they didn't address evolution at all, just pointed out your errors. Let us review the highlights, first from Message 191:
  1. You've been ignoring that people have been telling you that speciation takes a long time on human timescales for any species but those with very short generation times.
  2. You've been ignoring all requests to define "kind" but insist on using the word anyway.
  3. You incorrectly claimed that a cat evolving into a dog would be an example of evolution. It isn't, plus it would take many human lifetimes for a new species to evolve from cats (and it wouldn't be a dog).
  4. Your claims about polystrate fossils (not polystrata fossils) have been shown wrong and instead of responding you just keep repeating your erroneous claims.
  5. You claimed Mount St. Helen's deposited many layers of strata. But it's a fairly typical volcano that did what many very active volcanos do, deposit a great deal of lava and ash, not "numerous levels of strata."
  6. You claimed the strata of the geologic column are ordered by weight and grain size. This couldn't be further from the truth. Layers of shale, slate, limestone, sandstone and pelagic layers of varying density and grain size alternate throughout the geological column.
  7. You claimed most fossils are found in heaps, so I pointed out that that's not true. Only some fossils are found in heaps. Most are not. And what makes you think that a global flood would deposit fossils in heaps? That's something rapidly flowing water might do, not a global flood above the highest mountains.
  8. You said, "Trust me." I pointed out that in the months you've been here you've fostered a strong air of distrust because you either misrepresent what people say or ignore it entirely while continually repeating errors about which you're often corrected.
Moving on to Message 203:
  1. You have yet to describe evolution accurately. You can't disprove what you don't understand.
  2. You keep confusing evolution with the origin of life.
  3. You confused not knowing everything with not knowing anything.
  4. You asked how we could know what happened millions and billions of years ago. I replied that it depends upon what evidence survived from that long ago. Where there is evidence of past events, no matter from how long ago, we have a chance of being able to figure out what happened.
And a couple more random things:
You keep throwing around terms like "assumptions" and "not real science" without providing a shred of evidence. If you're participating in this discussion scientifically you would have some evidence. Merely bad mouthing something isn't a form of scientific argument.
And you make many unsupported claims as if you're under some God delusion where you believe you need only declare something so in order for it to be so.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 11:28 AM candle2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2022 1:20 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022