|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Too Many Flaws with Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
[qs]Para:
One word for you, Dirty Harry: The Wedge Document. Oh, that's three words. Well, "make my day" anyway. Anybody, independent of religion or the scientific method would be hard pressed to lose this debate. Its so simplistic that a chimp with ERV could win the discussion. It is a interesting how people like yourself will extrapolate a simple obvious and ridiculous point. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bertot writes:
Of course, and easily done too, even without the wedge document (which in itself is proof enough). Let's take the logical path. Who is the designer? Only two things apply here. Aliens or god(s). In the case of aliens, they either evolved, or were designed. If they evolved, nothing's changed, now has there? If they were designed, then only two things apply for their designer. Aliens or god(s). We can continue this, until at some point, we HAVE to select god(s). There wasn't always life, afterall. And when god(s) are involved, that my friends, is religion. Would you like to demonstrate that design is a religion. Edited by Huntard, : used creator instead of designer, yes, I'm tired. I hunt for the truth What you can do in my country and get away with: Softdrugs? Legal!Legal drinking age? 16! Birth control (the pill)? Free! Gay marriage? Legal! Abortion? Legal! Euthanasia? Legal! Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)! Yep, only one way down for us!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
H writes:
Of course, and easily done too, even without the wedge document (which in itself is proof enough). Let's take the logical path. Who is the creator? Only two things apply here. Aliens or god(s). In the case of aliens, they either evolved, or were designed. If they evolved, nothing's changed, now has there? If they were created, then only two things apply for their creation. Aliens or god(s). We can continue this, until at some point, we HAVE to select god(s). There wasn't always life, afterall. Of course, and easily done too, even without the wedge document (which in itself is proof enough). Let's take the logical path. Who is the creator? Only two things apply here. Aliens or god(s). In the case of aliens, they either evolved, or were designed. If they evolved, nothing's changed, now has there? If they were created, then only two things apply for their creation. Aliens or god(s). We can continue this, until at some point, we HAVE to select god(s). There wasn't always life, afterall. And when god(s) are involved, that my friends, is religion. Again with the false assumptions and unwarrented assertions. It is not necessary to ask who the creator is to see that from a scientific standpoint things could have been designed and or created. Who he is and what it is is independant of this assumption. Your arguments are like you cartoon piture, they are fanciful and contrived. You are correct, only two things apply here, but its not aliens or gods, its that things were always here or they were not. Since the collective evidence suggest that things depend on thier existence for something else it is very reasonable (scientific)to conclude, that a designer (evolution or not) is one of the only possibilites. In other words the design principle is as valid (scientific) in its tenets as the starting point of biological or cosmological evolution. Neither of which can demonstrate absolutely thier ultimate designation or source, but are limited in thier obvious possibilties. Therefore since both are derived from observable evidence and cooroborated by such, both are very real considerations or the origins of things and should be taught as such.
We can continue this, until at some point, we HAVE to select god(s). There wasn't always life, afterall. And when god(s) are involved, that my friends, is religion. Interesting you have done nothing to allivate yourself of the point that things could have been created by whoever to operate the way they do, have you. You have in a cartoonish way, simply restated the possibilites. I told you you did not want to get into this, because it is to simple a point to demonstrate. Your not one of those chimps are you, ha ha. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bertot writes:
First of all, we DON'T see that. Second, once we establish things are designed, we absolutely MUST ask who or what this designer is, that's what science does, ask questions.
It is not necessary to ask who the creator is to see that from a scientific standpoint things could have been designed and or created. Who he is and what it is is independant of this assumption.
No, it isn't. Once we establish things are indeed designed, we want to know who or what did the designing to better understand how it was done.
Your arguments are like you cartoon piture, they are fanciful and contrived.
Project much?
You are correct, only two things apply here, but its not aliens or gods, its that things were always here or they were not.
How did you get to that conclusion? Oh, and we know living things weren't always here.
Since the collective evidence suggest that things depend on thier existence for something else it is very reasonable (scientific)to conclude, that a designer (evolution or not) is one of the only possibilites.
But te evidence DOES NOT show that. And since when is evolution a "designer"? To design something implies that you have a purpose in mind, evolution has no purpose.
In other words the design principle is as valid (scientific) in its tenets as the starting point of biological or cosmological evolution.
No, not really, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.
Neither of which can demonstrate absolutely thier ultimate designation or source, but are limited in thier obvious possibilties.
Evolution can't demonstrate that because it has no "source". And I beg to differ that ID can't. In fact I demonstrated above it can and in fact MUST.
Therefore since both are derived from observable evidence and cooroborated by such, both are very real considerations or the origins of things and should be taught as such.
Name one thing, just ONE thing that points to design.
Interesting you have done nothing to allivate yourself of the point that things could have been created by whoever to operate the way they do, have you. You have in a cartoonish way, simply restated the possibilites.
No I didn't. I showed that ID is religion, without any doubt. The fact you just close your eyes and say "Nuh-uh" doesn't change that fact.
I told you you did not want to get into this, because it is to simple a point to demonstrate.
Indeed it is, and I just did. I hunt for the truth What you can do in my country and get away with: Softdrugs? Legal!Legal drinking age? 16! Birth control (the pill)? Free! Gay marriage? Legal! Abortion? Legal! Euthanasia? Legal! Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)! Yep, only one way down for us!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
John 10:10 writes: If you want to believe that you descended from other animals, that is your choice to believe in that theory. But don't tell me that I or anyone else can know for a "fact" that we descended from other animals. That is the most preposterous statement I've ever heard any evolutionist make. It is not a question of what you or I want to believe. I repeat, you carry evidence in every cell in your body that tells you that you descend from a common ancestor with the other apes, and that you are more closely related to them than you are to other primates. In just the same way, assuming you are a white American, examination of your genome by an expert who does not know that fact will tell him that you are more closely related modern Europeans than you are to any native Americans living near you in the U.S.A. It is like the choice of believing that the earth is flat, or that it is an oblate sphere. The evidence shows one answer to be right. There is nothing preposterous about the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I know enough about what theories are to not base my life beliefs on the ToE that can never be shown to really work from start to finish. No you do not. You know nothing about what you are talking about as far as theories in general. You actually know less than nothing about the ToE. You have nothing to base your views on since you are utterly ignorant about the entire topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Bertot writes: I think you are over applying what John may be saying. He is indicating that he would like to see creation or design taught not necessarily a particular religion. Design is both scientific and philosophic, not religious. Trust me you dont want to get in a discussion with me on this point, you will lose. Think about it. Would you like to be the first person in the world to construct an argument for design in which the designer does not require a designer according to the argument? Trust me, you don't want to get in a discussion with me on this point, you will lose. Think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
H writes:
Second, once we establish things are designed, we absolutely MUST ask who or what this designer is, that's what science does, ask questions. Is your implication here that design is a very real possibility? Lets put it in question form. Given the available evidence is DESIGN a very real possibility, Yes or No? In the first place the design principle has nothing to do with who created it, it is independent of that question. From a strictly scientific standpoint, this question is not possible to answer, only that design is a very real possibility. Secondly, if science asks questions, why does it not include this principle in its conclusions following the concepts of evolution. Most evolutionists dismiss the ultimate source as unknowable therefore, not applicable.
How how did you get to that conclusion? Oh, and we know living things weren't always here. By obseving the avalible evidence, thats called the scientific principle I believe. Thanks for cooroborating my conclusion about the finite nature of physical reality.
But te evidence DOES NOT show that. And since when is evolution a "designer"? To design something implies that you have a purpose in mind, evolution has no purpose. Uh oh, he asserting again. My firend its not that evolution did or did not do anything. Its the very real possiblity given the observation available evidence that its laws, it appears to follow, make design a scientific viable possibilty. Your struggle is trying to disavow an obvious principle. Not to say it WASNT designed, only that logic would dictate it is a very real possibilty, that is supported by logic and scientific reasoning principles. You can do nothing to remove this point.
Name one thing, just ONE thing that points to design. Your kidding correct? How about anything and everything that followsobservable laws or what appear to be laws. Asserting that something may have not been designed is not the same as showing it was not. In this your task is impossible. Not that mine is not, onlythat your is as well. At any rate both are very viable conclusions based on the best possible evidence and scientific and logical principles. No I didn't. I showed that ID is religion, without any doubt. The fact you just close your eyes and say "Nuh-uh" doesn't change that fact. Pay attention Huntard, when you can remove the design principle from the realm of the observable and scientific realm, then you will have accomlished your task. Throwing the word religion at it doesnt make it go away. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Given the available evidence is DESIGN a very real possibility, Yes or No? It is unclear where you are looking for "design". But the available evidence is strong and overwhelmingly convincing that life is not designed but is clearly the result of evolutionary processes. We can strongly conclude this by comparing it to the result of things produced by evolutionary processes in the lab. It is not in doubt at all from just that evidence. And there is more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
There are some good debates brewing on here. Please take them to an appropriate thread so that they will not be lost in this backwater seven year old thing -this one was resurrected purely to talk about flaws in evolution. We have a forum especially set aside for Intelligent Design. You can find it at Intelligent Design. I reckon a post like RAZD's Who designed the ID designer(s)? would be a possible good place to take some of these discussions. And its two years fresher too! Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Off-Topic post moved to:
Message 120 Edited by Stile, : Moving Off-Topic Post... my hand hurts from the slapping...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3469 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
John 10:10 writes: Until then, it's just an unproven theory, and will always remain so. Sadly,you still don't even grasp the meanings of the basic term "theory". THEORY has 2 meanings It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory". In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation". But,in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION. Theories EXPLAIN facts Theories explain the facts we observe : Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works. Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates. Germs are a fact.Germ Theory explains how they cause disease. Evolution is a fact, it is observed.The Theory of Evolution explains how it works. the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all. Rather -the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made. Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ? Of course not. And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ? Of course not. And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.Would one say "germs are just a theory" ? Of course not. Yetsome people say "evolution is (just) a theory" as if it means"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false) when it really only means"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true) Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts. Kapyong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3469 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
gday,
John 10:10 writes: And when you prove in a lab how the facts came to be as they are to a high degree of accuracy, then the theory becomes a scientific law. Wrong.Completely wrong. That's your problem John - you simply don't grasp what these terms mean, nor how science actually works. Theories do NOT graduate to laws when "proven".But creationists always get this wrong. K.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3469 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
John 10:10 writes: According to this definition, theories can be upgraded to laws. John -the quote you posted specifically says : "This misconception" In other words, you read something that DISAGREED with you, but your reading comprehension is so bad, you think it AGREED with you. K.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DD2014 Junior Member (Idle past 3915 days) Posts: 17 From: Cali, USA Joined: |
quote: That is not what evolution claims. Evolution theorises that modern homosapiens share a ancestor with modern primates.(ie. We did not originate from monkeys). If you were not so ignorant you would actually research something before trying to claim it is flawed. And if you really belive that man was created by "God" about 6000 years ago (as most creationists agree on). What about Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals? clearly thinkers, tool makers, they wore jewlery and buried their dead, but are not modern humans. How could this be? Evolution!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024