Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

I also know that a building does not reproduce and is not subject to heritable mutations so the analogy is inapplicable.

---

Why is every design analogy I submit dismissed by you? How about you give me an everyday analogy that would describe ToE?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

**************

​

Despite your obvious confusion of abiogenesis and evolution (a common creationist problem so don't take offense) is this really the basis of your understanding of evolution or are you joking? You always end with a so it is hard to tell...but there is so much wrong in what you said I would like to know if this is where your knowledge really stands before proceeding.

​

cheers,
M

---

Okay, lets do one step at a time.
Origin of life...where and how did that happen according to you?
(hey, smiling is nice is it not?)

Origin of life is (a) nothing to do with evolution, and (b) currently in the realms of hypothesis. We don't know.Do we erect straw men? Please point them out when we do. I called yours a straw man because it was. It is not a real reflection of what mainstream science says.

Sonnike,To Karl,

quote:

---

Why is every design analogy I submit dismissed by you?

---

Because it is an argument from spurious analogy.http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ptic/arguments.html#similarityMark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Origin of life is (a) nothing to do with evolution, and (b) currently in the realms of hypothesis. We don't know.

​

Do we erect straw men? Please point them out when we do. I called yours a straw man because it was. It is not a real reflection of what mainstream science says.

---

Origin of life would seem to be the foundation for the whole thing. If you can't get past how life began how can you exclude God and simply believe that natural "accidents" "created" the world and the variety and complexity of life and nature we know?You call mine a straw man because it does sound preposterous, but that is exactly what ToE is..preposterous....too unbelievable for the logical mind (even if you leave God out of the question, I would never believe such a fairy tale)Listen, this question is for all of you:
what is preventing you from accepting God in your life??
Seriously, what holds you back?Smiley

quote:

---

. If you can't get past how life began how can you exclude God and simply believe that natural "accidents" "created" the world and the variety and complexity of life and nature we know?

---

Nobody's excluding God (many people who believe in God are perfectly comfortable that the diversity of life on this planet is as a result of evolution by natural selection). First you have to discard all naturalistic explanations before coming to a supernatural one. And we don't have to - the naturalistic explanation fits the evidence and explains biology.Saying "Godidit" doesn't explain anything - its a non-explanation. We didn't get out of the Dark Ages by saying "Godidit" to every physical problem we came across, you know.

quote:

---

what is preventing you from accepting God in your life??

---

there's no evidence.PE

quote:

---

Origin of life would seem to be the foundation for the whole thing.

---

No. How life started is of no consequence to evolution. Do you know what Darwin proposed in Origin of Species?

quote:

---

If you can't get past how life began how can you exclude God

---

I have no desire to exclude God. If God created the first life forms then so be it.

quote:

---

and simply believe that natural "accidents" "created" the world and the variety and complexity of life and nature we know?

---

Not natural "accidents". Matter behaving in accordance with natural laws.

quote:

---

You call mine a straw man because it does sound preposterous,

---

No, but rather because it is a misrepresentation. Your version sounds preposterous, but it is not what scientists are actually saying. A perfect example of a straw man.

quote:

---

but that is exactly what ToE is..preposterous....too unbelievable for the logical mind (even if you leave God out of the question, I would never believe such a fairy tale)

---

Argument from personal incredulity. Since a lot of people find it impossible to believe in God, by your logic He can't exist.

quote:

---

Listen, this question is for all of you:
what is preventing you from accepting God in your life??

---

I accepted God into my life in 1983. Last I checked, He was still there. Yep. Also turned up at the Sung Eucharist at York Minster on Sunday morning. But that's faith, not science, and not relevant to evolution.

quote:

---

Smiley

---

OK then -

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Origin of life would seem to be the foundation for the whole thing.

---

But its not, sonnike. It isn't like building a geometry where you assume your premises and build an edifice upon them. In other words, scientists do not assume what happened in the past and conclude that evolution is the answer. The ToE is build the other way around. Scientists observe what is happening right now and extrapolate backwards through time checking those extrapolations against the fossil records.

quote:

---

If you can't get past how life began

---

You don't have to get past how life began. The ToE only deals with living organisms. It is independant of how the first organisms got here. God could have made the first critters.

quote:

---

how can you exclude God and simply believe that natural "accidents" "created" the world and the variety and complexity of life and nature we know?

---

No one is actively excluding God. We have evidence and we follow it. That's all. No one is turning flips to avoid God. There just isn't any evidence that leads in that direction.

quote:

---

You call mine a straw man because it does sound preposterous

---

That isn't why your statements are called straw men. A straw man is a misrepresentation of an argument. Even if your version is correct, it is a straw man if it isn't the argument being made by your adversary.

quote:

---

too unbelievable for the logical mind (even if you leave God out of the question, I would never believe such a fairy tale)

---

agument from incredulity... this is a logical fallacy. What was that about the logical mind?

quote:

---

what is preventing you from accepting God in your life?

---

There is no reason to believe. There is no evidence.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

In almost all discussions between intelligent people among different subjects, both parts can mostly fully understand and describe the opponents view, and why they believe in it. When we disagree it is often due to a part in the other idea/concept which is thought to undermine it.In your post it is just plain evident you have not understood evolution at all. Your points just miss the target.(A small comparison. Communism for example. Anyone who have understood it can agree that it's a great idea. _In theory_. Everyone living together, sharing everything equally in harmony. No class or economical differences. It would be a kind of utopia. I however, and most people nowadays would argue that humans doesn't seem to fit into this model, since we all are a bit too greedy. And that communism doesn't seem to work very good in a real society. But still I can understand the greatness of the idea. )What is astonishing about creationists is that most of you don't even seem to grasp why evolution is thought of by almost all scientists as a great explanation. Why is that then ? In message after message it becomes evident that most of you haven't taken the time to fully understand it. (Or even just the basics.)
Time after time i am just amazed. Does your intellects go into sleeping-mode every time someone offers you a good explanation for evolution ? This debate sometimes seems like a debate between a person and a brick wall. Maybe you should get into the role of the devils advocate...
Don't you agree it is easier to argue against something that you actually understand ?
Imho most creationists don't even want to understand it.(mind the english, it's not my native languange
//TechnoCore

quote:

---

Originally posted by TechnoCore:
In almost all discussions between intelligent people among different subjects, both parts can mostly fully understand and describe the opponents view, and why they believe in it. When we disagree it is often due to a part in the other idea/concept which is thought to undermine it.

​

In your post it is just plain evident you have not understood evolution at all. Your points just miss the target.

​

(A small comparison. Communism for example. Anyone who have understood it can agree that it's a great idea. _In theory_. Everyone living together, sharing everything equally in harmony. No class or economical differences. It would be a kind of utopia. I however, and most people nowadays would argue that humans doesn't seem to fit into this model, since we all are a bit too greedy. And that communism doesn't seem to work very good in a real society. But still I can understand the greatness of the idea. )

​

What is astonishing about creationists is that most of you don't even seem to grasp why evolution is thought of by almost all scientists as a great explanation. Why is that then ? In message after message it becomes evident that most of you haven't taken the time to fully understand it. (Or even just the basics.)
Time after time i am just amazed. Does your intellects go into sleeping-mode every time someone offers you a good explanation for evolution ? This debate sometimes seems like a debate between a person and a brick wall.

​

Maybe you should get into the role of the devils advocate...
Don't you agree it is easier to argue against something that you actually understand ?
Imho most creationists don't even want to understand it.

​

(mind the english, it's not my native languange
//TechnoCore

---

Hello T.,
(I won't hold it against you that you're a swede .. I'm from Denmark myself)Alright mr. Socialist country man.. if you will, present an every day analogy of what evolution is....it shouldn't be too hard, I would think, since you have such a grasp on it.Vi snakkes hved,

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Actually very little in science can be accurately explained to a six year old. Otherwise we could teach Thermodynamic Meteorology to first graders.

---

LOL!!!

[QUOTE]Hello T.,
(I won't hold it against you that you're a swede .. I'm from Denmark myself)Alright mr. Socialist country man.. if you will, present an every day analogy of what evolution is....it shouldn't be too hard, I would think, since you have such a grasp on it.Vi snakkes hved,
[/B][/QUOTE]Karl already did in message #34. Why don't you reply to him?

------------------------------------
Karl(msg#34): The initial population didn't need to survive long because evolution is pretty much inevitable. Why? Well, organisms have far more offspring than survive to reproduce. There is variation within the population. Those most suited to the environment are those most likely to be the lucky ones. They therefore pass on their beneficial characteristics to their offspring, causing a change in the proportions of different characteristics in the population.Diversity - when a population spreads into new environments, different characteristics will be beneficial in one environment compared to another. Therefore, evolution will follow different paths in different environments. This will lead to a diversity of forms.
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Originally posted by schrafinator:Karl already did in message #34. Why don't you reply to him?
-------------------------------------------That's a lovely story..it doesn't really say much and what is does say sounds more like micro-evolution than macro...nobody's is arguing against micro-ev.I checked my University "mainstream science" biology textbook, and guess what, the "story" of evolution is even more laughable in the textbook, than the summary I gave of your "theory" earlier.
BTW, even though you guys don't include origin of life anymore (how conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient ) the text did,...sad to see such "busch league" material in a university textbook.Forgetting the origin (which you hypocrites don't mind attributing to God), according to ToE single celled organisms take up 3.7 billion years of life, and in the last 0.8 billion years ALL plant and animal life has "evolved"....wow! Like I said before, you guys have greater faith than I do..too bad you won't place it where it belongs (Creator God). Not to mention that according to ToE, probably every 25 million years there is a worldwide catastrophic event which wipes out life (ie. dino's) which leaves even less time to "evolve"...yet even though God describes a world wide catastrophic event, you dismiss it.Give your head a shake people!

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

I also know that a building does not reproduce and is not subject to heritable mutations so the analogy is inapplicable.

---

​

Why is every design analogy I submit dismissed by you? How about you give me an everyday analogy that would describe ToE?

---

Your design analogy is not valid for exactly the reasons I stated. A building cannot reproduce and is hence not subject to heritable mutation. As to the second part, in post 34, Karl gave you one very simple broad overview of evolution by natural selection to which you never responded. Either it was to complicated for you or you ignored it. If you did read it, what did you not understand?

deleted by M due to duplication[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-02-2002]