Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
760 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, marc9000, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 752 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,893 Year: 21,929/19,786 Month: 492/1,834 Week: 492/315 Day: 88/82 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 181 of 217 (524280)
09-15-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Arphy
09-15-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
The term evolution is used as in Cosmic evolution (nothing to do with a change in allele frequency), Stellar and Planetary Evolution (also nothing to do with a change in allele frequency), Abiogenesis is also seen as a type of evolution, and the term evolution is often associated with it, and Chemical Evolution.

Or so Chick, Hovind, or some other cretin taught you to blindly accept... absolute bullshit. I'm a cosmologist/mathematician/physicist. I do not know one fellow scientist who would for one second think you meant anything other than the Theory of Evolution (as in biological evolution on planet Earth) if you were to use the term evolution without any other qualifier. As a cosmologist, I have no clue as to what you mean by "cosmic evolution". Are you talking about big bang cosmology, or say galactic evolution? "Stellar evolution" concerns the life-cycle of a single star. We talk about how a star evolves its way across the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. That's like describing my life from birth to death as human evolution. And what the hell is "planetary evolution"? We have the field of planetary formation - is this what you mean? Chemical evolution? Is that how hydrogen evolves its way across the periodic table to Ununoctium?

Is there no end to creationist bullshit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Arphy, posted 09-15-2009 3:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by bluescat48, posted 09-15-2009 5:55 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2526 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 182 of 217 (524298)
09-15-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by cavediver
09-15-2009 3:55 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
I do not know one fellow scientist who would for one second think you meant anything other than the Theory of Evolution (as in biological evolution on planet Earth) if you were to use the term evolution without any other qualifier.

One does not even need to be a scientist to, when hearing the word evolution without a qualifier, understand it as "Biological evolution."
I have no science degree, I'm what one might call a "shade tree scientist."


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by cavediver, posted 09-15-2009 3:55 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3519 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 183 of 217 (524306)
09-15-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Arphy
09-15-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
Again, this is the problem with the evolutionists here. They seem to imply that the term evolution only applys to biological evolution. However this is not the case. The term evolution is used as in Cosmic evolution (nothing to do with a change in allele frequency), Stellar and Planetary Evolution (also nothing to do with a change in allele frequency), Abiogenesis is also seen as a type of evolution, and the term evolution is often associated with it, and Chemical Evolution. note that in all of these other examples of types of evolution that evolution seems to mean "simple to complex" or "order from disorder". This is the way I think the term should be used to be consistent. If you want to only talk about biological evolution then state so. But Evolution with a big E is about order from disorder or simple to complex.

My post showed examples of scientific successes and, conversely, the failure of religion to achieve a similar level of success. I was talking about science, not conflating evolution. I made two points in that post which you have sidestepped instead of addressed:

1. Science produces tangible results
2. Evolution (meaning biological evolution) as I described is a fact

The line about evolution being change in populations over time should have been a clue that I was speaking of biological evolution, I apologize if you were unable to draw that inference, but I believed (and still do) that the context was obvious.

The rules of capitalization don't seem to be what you think they are. Big E and little e doesn't change the the message, your herring is red.

Oh, and the order from disorder and simple to complex ideas have nothing to do with evolution, or Evolution either. We observe that life appears to have started off very simply which leaves increasing complexity as the only way to move...but now that more complex forms exist a movement towards less complex or even more disordered life is still evolution. Evolution is change


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Arphy, posted 09-15-2009 3:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 184 of 217 (524338)
09-15-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Tanndarr
09-15-2009 12:45 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
Hi Tanndarr,

A change in allele frequency can be deduced from observations other than comparing fully sequenced genomes.

It's more than that, as it has to do with how alleles are actually defined. When a genomic sequence is identified as an allele it is matched to an expressed hereditary trait.

We know there are alleles for green eyes, because there are green eyes, not because there is a specific genetic sequence. The gene may be recessive, so it is not always expressed, until there are diploid copies, but that is what Mendel studied.

The expressed trait is what is affected by natural selection. The group of genetic sequences that causes the expressed trait to develop is called the allele for that trait.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Tanndarr, posted 09-15-2009 12:45 AM Tanndarr has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 185 of 217 (524340)
09-15-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


Hi again, Archangel, I'll answer in greater detail later, as I am still traveling, it is late (and I don't like posting when tired), and the connection here is pathetic (supposed to be broadband, but more like old dial-up), so I'll just note one thing:

By that I mean that unless animals were buried via cataclysmic events such as the biblical flood which would have realistically laid down layer after layer of animal rich strata via sedimentation throughout the world in a very short period of time, which offers us a fossil record which your side misinterprets at every level of understanding, can the fossil record be rationally explained at all.

The problem for you is then to explain how the foraminifera are sorted by layers rather than randomly distributed throughout the whole sedimentation layers. Why do they show the gradual evolution of species after species and the tree of common ancestry? How does that occur from stirring a pot of mud with dead forams in it?

You claim to be a skeptic: lets see you apply your skeptical outlook to the claim of the flood laying down layers of fossils in discrete, sorted and organized layers.

Have fun, see ya later, when I get home.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 186 of 217 (524344)
09-16-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


You evos are very wordy people since it takes a lot of words to sound scientific.

The great thing about our cunning plan to sound scientific is that we've managed to fool the world's scientists.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

But somehow you, whose knowledge of science can only be expressed as a negative number, since everything you think you know about it is nonsense that's been fed to you by creationists --- you can see through our little charade.

It must be nice for you to know more about science than the world's community of scientists do collectively. It must be even more of a boost to your ego to have achieved this without ever having spent a moment actually studying the subjects you're prating on about.

For example, having never spent a moment studying taphonomy, and knowing nothing at all about it --- do you even know the word? --- you still feel confident enough to bullshit us about it. What a great genius you must be, to be sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 187 of 217 (524378)
09-16-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2009 2:18 AM


RAZD writes:

The problem for you is then to explain how the foraminifera are sorted by layers rather than randomly distributed throughout the whole sedimentation layers. Why do they show the gradual evolution of species after species and the tree of common ancestry? How does that occur from stirring a pot of mud with dead forams in it?

You claim to be a skeptic: lets see you apply your skeptical outlook to the claim of the flood laying down layers of fossils in discrete, sorted and organized layers.

I don't believe the fossil record shows this organized and gradual record of evolution as you assert it does. I believe the only thing organized about evolution science is the lie which it tells in order to convey a convincing story. It is no different than the dishonest, yet very neat way your original testimony of the Pelycodus reads. On its face one would have to be a denier of facts to reject your claims, but upon minimal scrutiny, it defines all of the inconsistencies and contradictions which are endemic with this false and pseudo science. Claiming something does NOT make it true at all, and neither does it become true if a massive volume of lies have been created over decades or even centuries. A lie doesn't become truth just because it is repeated thousands or even millions of times.

Here's another example for you. Islam is a 1500 year old cult. It claims to be a true religion of God, it is perceived by the world to be a true and valid religion. But by every bit of evidence based on what it actually represents in reality, it is most assuredly a false religion, or a cult as they are known to be by reasonable people. This cult which believes in and promotes the outright murder of anyone who rejects it is more satanic than Godly in its desire to enslave people spiritually since islam tends to hold its followers in bondage through fear and intimidation rather than liberty and free thought.

Dr Adequate writes:

The great thing about our cunning plan to sound scientific is that we've managed to fool the world's scientists.

Fool them? I doubt it. It's just more convenient for them to avoid confronting this massive lobby which will attempt to destroy the career of any scientist who opposes their agenda.

But somehow you, whose knowledge of science can only be expressed as a negative number, since everything you think you know about it is nonsense that's been fed to you by creationists --- you can see through our little charade.

Here's the rub DA, a scientific knowledge isn't necessary or required when discussing a supernatural event which the Creation account is. Just because secular humanists must define, categorize and quantify evolution as a valid science, doesn't mean that it is in reality. It is the epitome of fraud and a pseudo science.

It must be nice for you to know more about science than the world's community of scientists do collectively. It must be even more of a boost to your ego to have achieved this without ever having spent a moment actually studying the subjects you're prating on about.

It isn't necessary to study the intricacies of a lie in order to recognize that it's a lie on its face.

For example, having never spent a moment studying taphonomy, and knowing nothing at all about it --- do you even know the word? --- you still feel confident enough to bullshit us about it. What a great genius you must be, to be sure.

Is this what you call a rebuttal to my time lapse video showing that even with protection from predators, a rabbit is devoured by insects within 7 days? Posting that video somehow proves I don't understand Taphonomy? If you actually read my prior criticisms, you would see that although I reject the evolutionists interpretation of the fossil record, I don't deny that fossilization occurs in reality. I just reject the concept that animals die and their remains survive long enough to be buried naturally in order to leave a permanent record of their entire generation in nice neat and easy to read sedimentary layers as evolution claims it is. You guys make it seem as easy as reading tree rings when in reality the only way the majority of all fossils survived to become that way only through cataclysmic upheavals. So by its very nature, that would explain why there are pockets of fossils at certain strata levels apart from the universal layers which were created by the great Flood of Noah. How sad that you secularists misinterpret all available evidence and attempt to erase our Maker from the equation of how we came to be here.

And speaking of tree rings, Can you explain why, in such a old earth, no trees have survived past 8000 years anywhere according to this link, with the previous oldest at around 5000 years old? http://www.t.../Worlds-oldest-tree-discovered-in-Sweden.html Now, by all means let the excuses fly as you attempt to explain to this innorant christian why he just doesn't understand what you secularists see so clearly. Here's an excerpt.

World's oldest tree discovered in Sweden

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region
The world's oldest tree has been found in Sweden, a tenacious spruce that first took root just after the end of the last ice age, more than 9,500 years ago.
The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region, revealing that it was much warmer at that time and the ice had disappeared earlier than thought.

Previously, pine trees in North America were thought to be the oldest, at around 5,000 years old.

But Swedish scientists report that in the mountains, from Lapland in the north to Dalarna in central Sweden, there are much more ancient spruce trees (Picea abies).

Prof Leif Kullman at UmeƄ University and colleagues found a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000 years old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 2:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Huntard, posted 09-16-2009 10:03 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 189 by NosyNed, posted 09-16-2009 10:20 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 12:24 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 12:34 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 1:29 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2009 2:44 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 194 by SammyJean, posted 09-16-2009 2:50 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 632 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 188 of 217 (524382)
09-16-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


Archangel writes:

And speaking of tree rings, Can you explain why, in such a old earth, no trees have survived past 8000 years anywhere according to this link, with the previous oldest at around 5000 years old?


Uhm....Why have no humans survived past 200 years anywhere? Because they died, Archy, that's what living things do, they die....


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 189 of 217 (524385)
09-16-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


A second explanation
So, your first explanation for what we see is that God is a big practical joker.

The second explanation is that we don't see what we claim to see at all. You claim that 10,000's of people over many decades are liars.

Really well thought out Arch.

As for tree rings, take that to this thread:
Message 1 Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 8:36 AM NosyNed has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 190 of 217 (524425)
09-16-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


I don't believe the fossil record shows this organized and gradual record of evolution as you assert it does.

Whereas people who study rocks --- they're called geologists --- think it does. And people who study fossils --- they're called paleontologists --- think it does.

Here's the rub DA, a scientific knowledge isn't necessary or required ...

And here's the rub, Archangel. Scientific knowledge is necessary and required to engage in a scientific discussion.

But if, on the other hand, all you want to do is scream halfwitted nonsense about how science is "a lie" and "the epitome of fraud" and "a pseudo science", then your complete, total, pitiful ignorance of science will suffice.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 191 of 217 (524427)
09-16-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


Is this what you call a rebuttal to my time lapse video showing that even with protection from predators, a rabbit is devoured by insects within 7 days?

Why yes. The fact that you've never bothered to study the subject that you're drooling on about is in fact a good reason to ignore your drivel.

And speaking of tree rings, Can you explain why, in such a old earth, no trees have survived past 8000 years anywhere according to this link, with the previous oldest at around 5000 years old?

Yes. Obviously I can.

They have survived two thousand years longer than Biblical chronology allows for the age of the Earth because Biblical chronology is a load of crap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2009 10:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5867
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 192 of 217 (524431)
09-16-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


Radiometric dating.... when it's convenient.
Can you explain why, in such a old earth, no trees have survived past 8000 years anywhere according to this link, with the previous oldest at around 5000 years old? Now, by all means let the excuses fly as you attempt to explain to this innorant christian why he just doesn't understand what you secularists see so clearly.

The first problem you have is that you are still using a tree that is well over 2,000 years older than the oldest accepted biblical chronology. That serves to refute your own case, not strengthen it. A solitary old tree just brings the whole concept of a young earth in to disrepute.

Secondly, trees are organic matter. That a tree does not survive for more than 10,000 years, or whatever, doesn't mean by default that the earth must be less than a few thousand years old. It just means that trees don't live billions of years just like all organic matter.

Lastly, why is it that Young Earth creationists only accept carbon dating (or other forms of radiometric dating) when it is convenient for them? Isn't that cherry picking? Either C-14 dating is flawed or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 193 of 217 (524442)
09-16-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


Claiming something does NOT make it true at all, and neither does it become true if a massive volume of lies have been created over decades or even centuries. A lie doesn't become truth just because it is repeated thousands or even millions of times.

I agree.

So what criteria of truth do you use to determine what is a lie and what is not?

Here's the rub DA, a scientific knowledge isn't necessary or required when discussing a supernatural event which the Creation account is. Just because secular humanists must define, categorize and quantify evolution as a valid science, doesn't mean that it is in reality. It is the epitome of fraud and a pseudo science.

You don't necessarily require scientific knowledge if you are discussing a supernatural event.

However, you do need scientific knowledge if you are discussing what is or is not 'valid science'.

I just reject the concept that animals die and their remains survive long enough to be buried naturally in order to leave a permanent record of their entire generation in nice neat and easy to read sedimentary layers as evolution claims it is.

Are you suggesting that no organisms are ever rapidly buried unless a supernatural event occurs? That seems like a very broad statement, indeed! No animal has ever died in a mud slide, or in a tar pit or other boggy area? Granted, such events are rare - certainly not the norm - but nobody ever claimed it was common. We'd probably see things with shells (especially those that live in the water) getting fossilized more often than squishy animals that spend time on the land.

It isn't necessary to study the intricacies of a lie in order to recognize that it's a lie on its face.

Sometimes things that seem extraordinary, impossible even, at first blush turn out to be not only possible but inevitable with further study.

So how does all this tie into the phrase 'evolution is a fact'? Are you just trying to say that you think that evolution isn't true? That seems like a different topic entirely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 194 of 217 (524444)
09-16-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


Archangel writes:

I don't believe the fossil record shows this organized and gradual record of evolution as you assert it does.

What you believe and what is in reality are two very different things, obviously. Please show us the evidence that you have used to reach your belief that the fossil record doesn't show an organized and gradual record of evolution.

Archangel writes:

Claiming something does NOT make it true at all, and neither does it become true if a massive volume of lies have been created over decades or even centuries. A lie doesn't become truth just because it is repeated thousands or even millions of times.

Right back at you! This is exactly what religion does. This is why science uses evidence. It's religion that uses myth and lies repeated over and over, twisted and turned to bolster it's own lies. Your right, claiming something over and over doesn't make it true at all, especially went you have no evidence to back up your claim, just like your religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3910
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 195 of 217 (524478)
09-16-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2009 12:34 PM


Dr Adequate, be nice now
One cranky message isn't a big deal, but you have a history of issuing cranky messages.

Be nice - Messages such as some of yours can be the little seeds of a larger flame war.

Or something like that.

NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. NONE AT ALL. OR ELSE.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 12:34 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019